THE

House of Assembly Debates

(OFFICIAL REPORT)

FIRST SESSION 1999 – 2004

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

Tuesday, December 5, 2000

Pursuant to the adjournment the House of Assemblymet at 11.20 a.m. on Tuesday, December 5, 2000.

PRESENT

His Honour I. A. ROETT, B.A., Dip. Ed. (Speaker)His Honour J. M. EDGHILL, J.P. (Deputy Speaker)Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE, K.A., Q.C., M.A., LL.M.

(Cantab.)Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR, M.Sc. (Econ.), (Prime

Minister, Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs)(Minister of the Civil Service)

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS, Q.C., LL.M. (AttorneyGeneral and Minister of Home Affairs) (Leader of theHouse)

Mr. D. J. H. THOMPSON, LL.B. (Hons.) (Leader ofthe Opposition)

Sir HAROLD St. JOHN, K.A., Q.C., LL.B.Mr. L. R. TULL, Q.C., M.A . (Oxon.)Hon. Miss B. A. MILLER, (Deputy Prime Minister,

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade)Mr. G. W. PAYNE, LL.B.Mr. D. CARTER (Chairman of Committees)Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE, B.A., LL.B. (Minister of

Labour, Sports and Public Sector Reform)Hon. G. A. CLARKE, B.Sc., Dip. Ed., J.P. (Minister

of Housing and Lands)Hon. H. F. LASHLEY (Minister of Social

Transformation)Hon. R. St. C. TOPPIN, LL.B. (Minister of

Commerce, Consumer Affairs and Business Development)Mr. D. St. E. KELLMANMiss H. E. THOMPSON, LL.B.Mr. M. Z. WILLIAMSMr. T. A. PRESCOD, B.A.

Rev. J. J. S. ATHERLEY, B.A., B.Sc. (ParliamentarySecretary to the Attorney-General and Minister of HomeAffairs)

Mr. D. T. GILL, B.Sc.Hon. N. A. LYNCH, B.Sc., M.B.A., (Minister of

Tourism and International Transport)Hon. A. P. WOOD, J.P., B.Sc., M.Sc. M.Phil.

(Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development)

Prayers were taken by Canon Father Ivan Harewood.

Mr. SPEAKER: The House is now in session.

MINUTES

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minutes of Tuesday, November28, 2000.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I beg tomove that the Minutes for the Honourable the House ofAssembly for its meeting of Tuesday, November 28, 2000,which Minutes have been circulated, be taken as read.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: I beg to second that, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: If there are no corrections orobservations, then let these Minutes stand confirmed.

PAPERS

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, Sir, onbehalf of the Minister of Tourism and InternationalTransport, I beg to lay the following:

1. Financial Statements of the Needham’s PointDevelopment Inc. for the year endingDecember 31, 1998.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: I beg to second that, Sir.

December 5, 2000 2

CONGRATULATORY SPEECHES

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I think it isappropriate when one of our former colleagues has beenrecognised that the House, just as it would if unfortunatelyhe had died, pays tribute. I think that it is appropriate, Sir,that we should say a few words by way of congratulations tothat colleague. I refer obviously to the latest Knight, now tobe known as Sir Lloyd rather than...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Sir, I refer to Sir LloydSandiford.

It was my fortune, Sir, to have been in this Parliamentfrom 1976 to 1981 and then from 1985 to 1994 to have sat inParliament on the other side of Rt. Hon. Sir Lloyd Sandiford.It was also my fortune to have known him from his schooldays, though he went to Harrison College via, I believe,Coleridge and Parry...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: As was the case in the1950s in the secondary schools, particularly Lodge andHarrison College, there was great rivalry among the boys inthe sixth forms. Even though I was from the Lodge School,I came to know of, and in some cases to know personally,most of the boys in the sixth form in Harrison College, whowere either in the Classics Sixth or the Modern Studies Sixthbecause they would have been direct competitors with meand others at Lodge School who were students in theClassics Sixth.

He was ahead of me and when he won the BarbadosScholarship in 1957, I had only been in the Sixth Form forone year and of course, he duly left and went overseas. Onewas always aware that people like Lloyd Erskine Sandiford,George Eustace Theodore Brancker, before them, HenryForde were the “hot” boys who were likely to becomescholarship winners.

Aside.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Richie Haynes, of course,was the most famous of that lot around 1957, known thenbecause of his prowess in the classics as Pliny Haynes afterthe great Roman author.

In those days when you won a Barbados Scholarship,you tended to remain for a year and go to work, perhaps inthe teaching service, before going off overseas to pursueyour scholarship. Mr. Sandiford remained in Barbados for ayear. Dr. Haynes then converted from classics to getting hisqualifications in ‘O’ level science subjects: biology,

chemistry and physics, as did for example, Oscar Jordan andthen they went away and pursued their various disciplines.

Mr. Sandiford went to Mona and had a distinguishedacademic career there. I never met him again – even thoughI got to know him in Barbados – until 1962 in a conferenceat Oxford. He had then qualified. He was not yet Mr.Barrow’s personal assistant. He was at Manchester, I thinkit was, reading for a Masters.

In those days we had a very vibrant West IndianStudents’ Centre which was owned by the Governments ofthe Caribbean, situated at 1 Collingham Gardens, EarlsCourt, which was a home away from home for most of us.We also had a powerful West Indian Students’ Union thatwas active and was prepared to publish frequently aboutmatters affecting the Caribbean, even though we were fourthousand miles away. It was at that West Indian Students’Centre, under the aegis of the West Indian Students’ Unionthat the leaders of the Caribbean in those days, when theyvisited England, always made it a point of duty to speak toWest Indian students.

Sir, we had the benefit of yearly visits and lecturesfrom Sir Grantley Adams, when he came up in the spring toattend the ILO meetings in Geneva. We had the benefit ofhearing Mr. Norman Manley, Dr. Eric Williams and Mr.Forbes Burnham. Cheddi Jagan was an annual performer atthe Students’ Centre and our idealism was constantly firedby interaction with the then leadership of these islands in theCaribbean.

One of things that the West Indian Students’ Centre didwas to organise a series of meetings among ourselves wherewe brought together the West Indian students from as far asScotland in the north to those at the colleges and universitiesin the south. We had one such meeting in Oxford in thesummer of 1962 where I renewed my acquaintance with Mr.Sandiford once again and I found him a most congenialperson.

Sir, when we happened to be on this Side, I believe Igave him careful study during his years in Opposition, 1976to 1981. He was a person who seldom intervened in a debatein those days and when he intervened, his contributions werealways measured.11.30 a.m.

I recall, in my parliamentary experience, that there havebeen two Members of this House who tended to keep notesof each sitting. Between 1976 and 1981, Mr. Sandiford usedto have a large book, almost like a Judges’ notebook, inwhich he wrote his notes on the various debates. The otherperson who has adopted that practice is the Minister ofEducation, the present Honourable Member for St. MichaelNorth East. She kept careful records of what transpired in

3 December 5, 2000

here particularly in the first term of this Government andwhen she was in Opposition. I always wondered if Mr.Sandiford used to keep notes to go back and use them witha view to writing the Manifesto. I never asked him why hedid that but he was a careful student.

I said two but there are three. The Honourable Memberfor Christ Church West, his yellow pads must now constitutea mountain in his house, because he writes almost everythingthat is said in here and underlines it in various colours of ink.

Mr. Sandiford made his contributions between 1976and 1981, as I said, in a very measured way and seemed totime them in such a way as not to run into verbal blows fromthe Other Side particularly the then Prime Minister ‘Tom’Adams. I met him again in here after the elections of 1986but more especially when he became Prime Minister from1987 to 1994, and one got an opportunity then from the otherside in Opposition to assess him.

I found him to be a very careful, methodical and attimes pedantic person. He stuck closely to the brief andnever ventured too far outside it. His one facility, that I thinkthose of us who were in here as three will recall, was hisability to counterpunch in the sense that he would receive hispummelling from the Other Side and you could be foolishenough to think that you had floored him until he replied.When he replied, Sir, he could be quite devastating.

Unfortunately, newspaper reporters do not appreciatethe value of a Minster’s reply and tend only to carry, if theycarry anything useful, what you say in your first speech,which invariably is what the first speaker for the Oppositionsaid in his reply but they do not balance their report by theministerial response at the end. This aspect of Mr.Sandiford’s debating style and skill has been lost, except tothose who were in here to appreciate it, because the Pressnever said ‘but in his reply so and so said so and so.’

Sir Lloyd had, as Prime Minister, a very turbulentcareer. There is no doubt about that. He was the victim in1988 of the consequences of a manifesto which profferedand offered great largesse without sufficient understandingthat the implementation of the policies in the 1986 Manifestowould have put the economy in turmoil. I think it was hisBudget Speech of 1988, which would have been the first onethat he delivered as Prime Minister and Minister of Finance,in which he found himself in a fiscal and economic vortexwhich two years after a massive Democratic Labour Partyvictory, required the first imposition of a terrible dose ofmedicine beginning with the stabilisation tax and all of that,Sir.

I am not going to go into the details of that 1988Budget, Sir, but I recall that he did say that, he had words tothe effect, he found it necessary to reverse the excesses of

his predecessors. Having to take that tough action in 1988and squeeze Barbadians, I think unfortunately, created anattitude to Mr. Sandiford by the people. He had to do whatwas necessary to save the Barbadian economy because likewhat happened later on, those pains of 1988 and 1989 wereself-induced by the prolificacy of the policies that captureda Government in 1986.

Unfortunately, he did not learn from the mistakes ofothers because having boasted in 1989 that the economy wasbreaking records and performing like Sir Garfield Sobers,right out there in Independence Square, for the purposes ofthe election in 1991 he repeated the medicine that had causedsuch pain. Before, he did not heed the warnings and he willalways be remembered for the famous statement ‘that he wasnot about to commit political suicide’.

To ensure the re-election of his party..., he won theelection in January 1991 but then by April found that hehimself now had to accept and shoulder the blame. He couldnot blame Dr. Haynes, for going to the InternationalMonetary Fund and putting us through the harsh fiscal andeconomic measures of 1991 to 1993, eight per cent cut andthe cut in increments and all of that. Unfortunately, hisrecord will come to be associated with those two periods offiscal pain.11.40 a.m.

It was unfortunate that in 1994 he found himself as thefirst Prime Minister who was a victim of a no-confidencemotion that led to the dissolution of the House.

Historians and analysts who review Mr. Sandiford’scareer may tend to focus on those matters which I have justdwelt on, but that would be to give a one-sided andunbalanced view of Sir Lloyd Sandiford. For those whocriticise the award it has to be said that Mr. Sandiford has notbeen rewarded, I presume, because I am not a member of theHonours Committee, because of those negatives in hispolitical career, but rather Mr. Sandiford has other positivecontributions to the politics of Barbados, the promotion ofdemocracy and in particular his undying promotion ofeducation.

For as long as there is a Community College there willhave to be both the mental and actual association of ErskineSandiford with that institution. It was his idea. He foughtwithin his Party to have it and today we all as Barbadians areproud of the contribution that the Community College ismaking to the education of our children and, indeed, childrenfrom other countries in the region.

As I said, Sir, he was deeply committed to educationaladvancement and I think that is significant because there isone thing that we should always remember and that is thatcountries which are successful are those where theeducational system is well entrenched and there is an

December 5, 2000 4

appreciation for education by all citizens, and that the humanresources of a particular country benefit from solid andprogressive education.

He was a Minister of Education for a long time and hemade a significant and indelible contribution. Even when hehad in view the establishment of a centre for examinationswhich was the first idea behind the Sherbourne Centre andhe was shown in here that the idea was not worthy of pursuit,the Sherbourne Centre moved from being a centre forexaminations to what it is today. On the regional scene it washe who gave birth to the idea that there should be anAssembly of Commonwealth/Caribbean Parliamentarians.The most recent meeting in Belize two weeks ago istestimony to his efforts to bring regional politicians closertogether to discuss the problems of the region in a simulatedparliamentary environment.

Sir, anybody who has given over 30 years of their lifeto public service and indeed to parliamentary service andthe representation of the people could not have succeeded for30 years unless he was a performer and was getting thingsdone. The longevity of Mr. Sandiford as politician attests tothe fact that he must have done a lot of good in his time.

I think a review of a person’s career should focus fairlyand objectively on the high points and the low points becausein public life there will be highs and there will be lows andyou learn to take the rough with the smooth in the politics. Alot of the rough is contrived.

Sir, I would wish to mention one other thing in termsof positive contributions. Nobody in Barbados at the time ofthe economic crisis that began in 1991 wished for thedevaluation of our dollar. Members of this Party that Irepresent warned that it was a distinct possibility in theelections of 1991 but nobody wished for a devaluation and,perhaps, outside of Barbados you get an appreciation of Mr.Sandiford to a greater extent than in Barbados.

Wherever I have travelled in the last few years in theCaribbean, particularly in Jamaica and in Trinidad, peoplehave always spoken highly of the fact – not Barbadians. Iam talking about Trinidadians, Jamaicans and Guyanese –have spoken of the fact that Mr. Sandiford was the one whodid not allow a devaluation of the Barbados dollar. That issomething for which he deserves high praise and accoladebecause he had to be steadfast.

I can imagine the stress that attended his office between1991 and 1994. It was not easy. He had heart trouble inTrinidad when he attended a meeting. He was always underconstant fire and attack. For all that, he never lost hishumour. I have seen him angry but respond in a measuredand controlled way. I can say that he has never been guilty of

abuse of language, coarse language. In here, he alwaysmaintained great dignity even if he tried to be aloof to thepoint where you thought he was ignoring you. He wouldrather do that than be offensive in his attitude.

The word that I wish to emphasise in this context is thathe always had a kind of quiet dignity about him despite thefact that he was almost always under the fiercest of attacks.Those are qualities which have to be admired, which Icertainly have admired. Personally, he and I have always goton well. You have a job to do in Opposition and you have tobe forceful, sometimes even aggressive, but he was never theone to bear malice and I think he understood when we had tobe hard on him because sometimes we were trying to showhim the error of his ways.11.50 a.m.

Sir, I always got on well with him. I will never forgetthat he had some kind words to offer me when I becameAttorney General. I saw him downstairs in the yard ofParliament and he pulled me aside and said some very kindthings to me which I shall always remember and cherish. Ido not think that he is a person who bore malice.

Mr. Speaker, each one of us has faults so he had faultsbut after 30 years of public service including service forseven years in the highest political office of this land, Ibelieve that when the matter is looked at in its totality, he didso much for his country that he justly should have beenrewarded with the highest offer that this country can bestow.

Sir, I wish to offer him congratulations and hope thathe has a long life. He is now firmly devoted to publishingand I wish to read some more of what he publishes.

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: I think you should readthem. You may disagree with certain things but you shouldread them.

It has been a weakness of our leaders, that they haveleft no record of what they did, why they did it, whatmotivated them, how they dealt with problems and thesolutions at a particular time of our history. Errol Barrowdied suddenly, Tom Adams died suddenly and I think it isright that our politicians should write the history of theirtimes if only to give a balanced view because sometimeswhen it is left to others to write after your death, someassumptions are made about why things are done that if youhad a chance to read it again, you would ask why it waswritten that way.

Sir, I feel everyone should write and I am certainlygoing to write.

5 December 5, 2000

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Yes, I certainly am goingto write and when I write I will also include a chapter on themost hilarious Member of Parliament that I have ever met.

I, therefore, wish the Rt. Hon. Sir Lloyd ErskineSandiford a long life with continuing good health. After wehave all made our contributions I would wish to alsocongratulate Your Honour for your contribution to educationwhich has been recognised in the conferment in the GoldCrown of Merits.

Sir, I am obliged to you. In due course the appropriateResolution will be sent to the Rt. Hon. Sir Lloyd ErskineSandiford.

Mr. D. J. H. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I rise tosecond the Resolution. I want to congratulate Sir Lloyd onbehalf of myself, of members of the Democratic LabourParty which Sir Lloyd led and which I now lead and onbehalf of the thousands of other Barbadians who areextremely pleased at the honour which was conferred onErskine Sandiford as he is still known to all of us.

The Honourable Member for St. Thomas said thatErskine Sandiford provides a very interesting study inleadership and probably was the most tested leader thatBarbados has ever had in its modern history. He took thiscountry through some of its most difficult economic times.He also made a tremendous impact in molding modernBarbados through his education policies. He served in avariety of public sector positions, as Minister of Finance andEconomic Affairs, as Deputy Prime Minister and then finallyas Prime Minister. Prior to his ministerial service he servedas Personal Assistant to Errol Barrow and in the UpperHouse as a Senator.

In every sense of the word, Erskine Sandiford hadexcellent grounding and opportunity for public service inBarbados which started by the wise choice of Errol Barrowto make him his Personal Assistant and then he served on thebasis of the people’s mandate for over twenty-eight years inthis Parliament.

As a resident of St. James, I first met Erskine Sandifordcasually. He used to drive a Toyota Crown and was notstingy in offering children a lift to school. Ever so often hewould drop me at the bottom of Bank Hall on his way towork and when he became an Opposition Member ofParliament he would drop his children to school faithfullyevery morning and I was the beneficiary on several occasionsof a lift.

He was not the kind of person who, when you got in hiscar, engaged in conversation immediately so that even sitting

in the car, unless you were an extrovert or precocious, youstill felt that Erskine Sandiford was not as approachable assome other people. He was deep in the sense that once youapproached him and he knew and understood you, he took agreat interest in your development and always gave advice.

He was not a shallow, flashy person who went out ofhis way to make small conversation with people or to elicitsuperficial information. He was extremely helpful in hisadvice to me and to many other young people.

I recalled in the 1970s hearing Erskine Sandiford onseveral political platforms and, as the Honourable Memberfor St. Thomas said, his speeches were almost standard form.They would start with the epistle to the Philippians “Finally,my brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever thingsare just, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things arepure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are ofgood report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise,think on these things.”

He often quoted from Henry Longfellow about thingsnot being as they seemed and in between those twoquotations, Erskine Sandiford carried an exercise book inwhich he stored information very meticulously and he wasnot to be interrupted.

I remember as a youngster chairing a meeting atAlexander School’s pasture in St. Peter and on theinstruction of the Leader of the Party, I sent a note to ErskineSandiford telling him that his time was up and I got astinging rebuke because he had written a speech and heintended to deliver that speech regardless of thecircumstances. So he did have an element of purposefulness.The Honourable Member for St. Thomas calls it being“pedantic”, but he was thorough, and if he intended to do ajob he would see it to the end, and so, I agree with thatanalysis of his personality. He thought through options andhe was the kind of person who placed a lot of store onthinking and the importance of thinking before acting. Youcould not approach Sir Lloyd for a rush decision on anything,not even an invitation to speak somewhere. He would say “Iwill get back to you when I have consulted my diary”, andtherefore that was a part of his personality.12.00 noon

There are a number of older Barbadians who tell methat their joining the Democratic Labour Party after l966, wasas a direct result of Sir Lloyd’s mobilising efforts. He did atremendous job in joining up a lot of citizens, and, if ourmembership books were ever thrown open to the public ofBarbados, I think people would be surprise at the positionswhich these persons have held, or now hold, but they joinedbecause of Erskine Sandiford’s efforts.

December 5, 2000 6

As a school teacher at Harrison’s College, he joined alarge number of members of staff there. He did thatthroughout the Teachers’ Union, he did it in St. John –throughout Barbados. He did an excellent job in mobilisationof new members, and the Party, therefore, had a membershiprole that increased expeditiously when he was GeneralSecretary.

We were talking earlier about leadership and, ErskineSandiford, perhaps is a leader who falls within the categoryof leaders who would have experienced that feeling, that“uneasy lies the head that wears the crown.”

In that sense, his accession to leadership, and theperiod in office, were examples of that scenario.

All through the l980's – the Honourable Member forSt. Thomas, was very right in the way he describes ErskineSandiford’s demeanor – we used to say that he was veryeconomical. He was not viewed as one of the front-runnersin the Opposition; there were others who were fighting to fillthat position. There were three or four men of his age andstature, and, there were all lining up, and by virtue of themfighting with each other, they made the job of leader a loteasier, so that Errol Barrow was able to comfortably guidethe Democratic Labour Party through Opposition, becausethose who were the principal pretenders to the throne couldnot agree on who should succeed them and out of the blue,one afternoon at a zone meeting at St. James Secondary,Erskine Sandiford delivered the speech at which he told theentire gathering “get in line, behind me, I am the senior oneamong all of you, both by the years spent in Parliament andalso by my Party’s seniority”.

A new equation emerged in the Democratic LabourParty, in terms of leadership, because those who felt thatErskine Sandiford was not interested in leadership, suddenlyrecognised that he was, in fact, the force to be contendedwith as the most senior person after Errol Walton Barrow.That was confirmed in the l986 Campaign, when he becameDeputy Prime Minister, and then after Errol Barrow’sdeath, he became Prime Minister, and I thought that againhe was tested, in every sense of the word.

I think one of the most memorable occasions whenErskine Sandiford’s “will of steel” was made evident to me,was the last meeting that we held with the World Bank.

The then Executive Director for our Region – I think hewas the Vice President of the Bank – was a gentleman whocarried the surname Hussein and the officials called him,behind his back Saddam Hussein but, he in fact, had anothername, and he was a Pakistani. When we approached themeeting, thinking that we would have to discuss all of the

options that the World Bank wanted to put Barbados throughto access structural adjustment loans, Erskine Sandiford,made the point, from the outset, that the exchange rate wasnot up for discussion – not even discussion, and thegentleman then said “let us discuss the performance of ourrespective cricket teams”, and, we remained in the room afew minutes discussing that, and decided on his initiative,and Erskine Sandiford’s, to part as friends, but, that therewill be no further discussions in relation to the substance ofthe structural adjustments facilities.

It was that “will of steel” that pulled Barbados througha very difficult time in its economic life, but it was also that“will of steel” which in the end many commentators feelwas responsible for the inability of Sir Lloyd, and those whodid not support him, to heal and mend fences and worktogether in the interest of the Party and the country.

So that you cannot have it both ways. A feature of aman’s personality that people praise in times of adversitythey cannot expect him to suddenly change and adoptdifferent clothing and a different outlook, unless he is acomplete pragmatist, devoid of any moral or positivecharacter-building traits.

For Erskine Sandiford, it can be said that as long as hehas made up his mind on a matter that his mind has beenmade up.

In the context of the Westminster system, we practisea form of government in which it is the Prime Minister whodeclares what the consensus of the Cabinet is. If a CabinetMinister cannot live with that consensus, and he cannot healthe breach with the Prime Minister, then he has to surrenderhis office.

The discussion takes place, it is true. Sometimes thatdiscussion may create a situation where the Prime Ministercan yield, but if his leadership is on the line, then once hedeclares the Cabinet consensus it must hold.

The reason why that is so ... because one needs tounderstand that you do not serve at a Cabinet at your ownbehest, you are not elected to Cabinet, you are selected by aman, and therefore, if you have difficulty either with hisstyle of leadership, or his policies or the consensus which heseeks to build, then you must tell him that and take yourexit, or you must sit and accept the way in which heconducts the leadership of the institution.

I have learnt that only too well. It works both ways.When you have a difficult matter, it may be important toattract the support of the Prime Minister, particularly if youexpect that your colleagues may not agree with it becauseof the declaration of the consensus.

7 December 5, 2000

If you have a matter which is not going to carry the day,then, you should if you wish to see your career prosper, treadgingerly with it.

You also have to know what to take to Cabinet, whatrequires Cabinet decision, and what falls within the directpurview of the Minister responsible.

I think that Erskine Sandiford fully understood thenature of that relationship, so that when we had to makedifficult decisions, one could always get a sense very earlyof how he was going to respond to those decisions. It wastherefore not difficult to work with him, because acommitment given as leader that your position was going toattract his support would be forthcoming.

If that commitment was not however given and Isuspect that there may be circumstances from time to timetowards the end in which it was not, then you could expectthat the matter may lead to the circumstances that led to thedemise of the Democratic Labour Party Government in l994.

It is again a study of the way in which the Westminstersystem works of the checks and balances in the system andof the contending forces that contrive to make theWestminster system one of the better systems of governmentin the world.12.10 p.m.

Beyond that, Erskine Sandiford would have seenhimself vindicated in relation to the establishment of theBarbados Community College. Although vindication is notan emotion that I like because I think it is better to move onin life, there are always people who are going to seek anelement of vindication. Some do it for revenge purposes butthere are others who do it to ensure that history is kind tothem. I do not think Erskine Sandiford falls in eithercategory for if it were so, he probably would have foundhimself seeking to cling forever to those who are opinionshapers in Barbados to ensure that the verdict was positive.That has not been his approach. In fact, both in terms ofeducational policies and in terms of the results of hiseconomic programme, in my view the leadership of ErskineSandiford has been entirely vindicated.

I think in that regard, the nation needs to come togetherand ensure that those persons who have made that kind ofcontribution to Barbados’ development are given theopportunity to receive the highest National Honour.

I think the Honourable Member for St. Peter wouldknow that Erskine was my representative on the HonoursCommittee for a while. When I felt that his name was worthyof consideration for such honour, I asked that he besucceeded – or replaced, if you want to put it that way – bysomebody else. I feel that in our system of National Honours,

if you are going to have a man’s name considered, he shouldnot also be sitting on that Committee. Therefore, I am glad –assuming that the Committee had a role in it, I do not knowhow these things work or whoever had a role in it – that theHonourable Member for St. Peter, who at the end of the dayhas to sign on the dotted line, would have made the decision,knowing that the country as a whole, would have accepted it.

There are just two other areas in which he wasvindicated. I do not mean this in a partisan sense but I alwayshave a smile on my face when I hear the Honourable Memberfor St. Peter talking about the CARICOM Single Market andEconomy because there was a time when he was critical ofthe pace or the non-pace of the CARICOM Single Marketand Economy, when it was under Erskine’s responsibility. Ithink the Honourable Member for St. Peter then set arigorous timetable for the implementation of it and there isnothing wrong with that.

I think reality set in and I saw in a Press conference,after the meeting in Canouan that he indicated that this thingmay take a lot longer than we anticipated and it probablywill. The point is that the circumstances in 1989, I think itwas, or 1990, when the responsibility for the Single Marketand Economy was given to Erskine Sandiford, were no wayas advanced either technically or in terms of the political will,as they are now. I think that the circumstances operating atthat time, probably militated considerably against anyprogress being made in relation to the development of theSingle Market and Economy.

I am certain that the Barbadian Prime Ministersthemselves in taking leadership for this area, starting withErskine Sandiford and now the Honourable Member for St.Peter, made a wise decision. My own view is that if there isany country that should be able by its leader to push thesingle market and economy, it would be Barbados and I thinkthat there is also enough consensus in our country on it.There is also a level of political maturity on matters thataffect Barbados externally and that has been historically so,except during the Grenada intervention. Even then, there maybe different reasons for that, Sir. The contribution of ErskineSandiford, on reflection, to the development of the SingleMarket and Economy, would almost have been an impossibletask at the time it was assigned to him.

Again, the recent assembly of parliamentarians took offbut under a cloud of great controversy. It has only held aboutthree meetings so far and my own suspicion is that eventuallythe leaders are probably going to have to review the structureof it, to ensure that you get better participation and that itactually is able to deliver on increasing the information flowsand the understanding of Parliamentarians. I think that thegreatest test in Erskine Sandiford’s leadership was that whenBarbados faced a big crisis, despite the opposition aroundhim, Erskine Sandiford truly felt that he could take it to the

December 5, 2000 8

people. There were skeptics who felt otherwise. I am nottalking about taking it to the people in terms of elections, buthe felt that a direct appeal to the public officers and a directappeal to the people, would yield the results that he wanted.Therefore, he did not have to dance around on a pinhead asleaders of other Caribbean countries had to do when theircountries were faced with similar circumstances.

Under his leadership the country made a direct appealto the public officers in Barbados and we are of the view thatthey responded favourably. Subsequent to that, the benefitsof a sacrifice have been seen by the entire region as a wholeand I think that was a true test of his leadership.

I am still of the view that interpretations of LloydErskine Sandiford’s personality, motivations andcontributions to Barbados are going to differ because he isstill with us and people tend to look at these things fromdifferent perspectives.

The final point I want to make is that throughout hiscareer, Erskine Sandiford was able to both stand on the peakand see the valley and then go in the valley and see howbeautiful the peak is and that is a true test, to my mind, of apolitician’s character. Sir, to be able to endure both thenegative, what he would call the slings and arrows of gravemisfortunes and he often quoted that, to see those whom heat one point may have termed as his enemies coalesce againsthim and to see economic circumstances almost contrive todestroy his Government, Sir, but also to see Barbados in1989, reach one of the highest levels of its economicachievement, to see Barbados continue to play a major rolein international affairs, to be a leader in the sustainabledevelopment movement through the United Nations and toattract a major conference here and to see many of the othergreat achievements of this nation flower, during the periodwhen he was Prime Minister, they were also achievements towhich he had contributed much in his many years of publicservice.12.20 p.m.

Sir, it is with the greatest of pleasure that I join inseconding the Resolution and congratulations to Sir LloydErskine Sandiford. I wish him good health in the period, notof retirement but of reflection and writing. I hope that he willbe able to enlighten the dark corners of the Caribbean andeven Barbadian economic history by applying himself to thattask of writing and research with great tenacity, so I join inthese congratulations today.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: Mr. Speaker, I would speakbriefly in this matter. Obviously, the decision to confer thehighest national honour on Sir Lloyd would not have comeas a surprise to me. Nonetheless, I have to say that it is anaward and an honour that is well and richly deserved.

Sir Lloyd would have spent 40 years in various aspectsof service to this nation, some at the highest level and someof a nature that has made a very important difference to theoverall development of our society and the human conditionsof Barbados. It would have been an invalidation of nationalhonours for his contribution performed over such anextended period not to have been recognised.

I would have known him, Sir, earlier than most personsin this House. He taught me English at school. Sir, I wouldhave recently in advance of his elevation, gone on record assaying that he was careful in his edification of me, that Ilistened to him well with never a wayward ear and here amI with his great help and assistance. I stand on that, Sir,although at the time if I would have to confess, Sir, he wasa very interesting teacher. He spent more of his time, I think,enlightening us about Caribbean politics than teaching usEnglish. He was a very hard taskmaster, Sir. Sir Lloyd usedto give people grade Cs and put excellent against it. Therewas a gentleman in my form called Mr. Sayers, and he gavehim a Grade I and said fair. You will get either an A, B, C,D, E, F, G, H or an I.

I remember him, Sir, as a very spirited lover of theEnglish language. He had a love as well even at that time forpolitics that was so self-evident that even in 1965 at HarrisonCollege, I felt that as an English teacher, Erskine Sandifordwas miscast and that he would eventually find his way intoBarbadian politics.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into the personalityaspect of it but Erskine Sandiford is a representative of ageneration of Barbadians of the highest quality who have puta great stock in public service. When the issue of this countryin the twentieth century comes properly to be written, Sir,one of the characteristics that distinguish Barbados frommost other Caribbean societies is the extent to which someof the very best talent of the Barbadian society felt that theyhad an obligation to ignore the superior attractions of profitand wealth and to devote a large part of their professionalcareer to public service, such as Sir Grantley Adams, theRight Excellent Errol Barrow, Sir Roy Marshall, a wholegroup of great talent and all of them who were in ErrolBarrow’s time.

In the fifties and sixties, Sir, there was an outpouringof Barbados Scholarships and talent, Barbadian scholars,who came back to serve whether in Parliament asrepresentatives or as the Clerk. I can call their names. Someare still here with us today, the Honourable Member forChrist Church West, the Honourable Member for ChristChurch South, Richie Haynes and others, Sir. That traditionof great talent in Barbados feeling that it has an obligation torender public service is an attribute that regrettably is beinglost in this country and it is an attribute that needs to berestored if the best qualities to Barbados life are to beperpetuated.

9 December 5, 2000

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that his elevation to public lifeis as much a recognition of his worth as it is a worth of thatgeneration of very highly talented Barbadian people whohave put public service above private gain.

He would also stand in the stream of our politicaldevelopment as representing a change in the leadershipguard. Those of us who studied leadership carefully wouldrecognise that there is a great divide between the style andthe power of the early leaders of West Indian politicalinstitutions and those of us who inherit leadership today.

The founding fathers of Caribbean political institutionsall wielded enormous power. For them, it was not so mucha question of commanding the support of the majority, themajority sought to command their support and their favours.It is through Sir Grantley Adams’ research, I am told, Sir,who decided who would run and who would not run andthroughout the entire Caribbean there was a tradition of“Colonismo”, Latin American styled leadership wherefounding fathers ran political parties with an almostproprietary, regulatory instinct. It was their party and theydid not have to command the support of the majority, themajority had to command their support.

Erskine Sandiford found himself in that stream wherethey had to be a change in leadership where the leader had infact to come to command the support of the majority. Sadly,history will have to say that he did not quite fully understandthe subtle distinction in the role that a founding father couldperform to those of us who inherit leadership in modernpolitical parties with long traditions but who were notfounding fathers. We do now as leaders of politicalinstitutions have to work to command the support of thepeople that we lead in a way that Sir Grantley Adams and theRight Excellent Errol Barrow did not have to.

Erskine Sandiford eventually fell in Parliament becausehe could not command the support of his men. I suppose,Sir, that as the great scholar that he is, he will perhaps findsolace in King Lear’s, ‘I am a man most sinned against thansinning’.

I was in this House on that very, very unforgettable andsolemn evening, Sir, when the vote of no-confidence wasmoved against him and he was plaintive in his statements‘what have I done wrong to deserve the disapprobation ofthis Parliament.’ Sir, it was, one of the grimmest moments inthe history of this Parliament. He was making the point, Sir,‘I feel that I am a man who is now being most sinned againstthan sinning.’

I remember him, Mr. Speaker, for his great friendshipto me and my family. When my father ran a small shopin Rose Hill, Sir, even as Prime Minister of Barbados,

Mr. Sandiford used to go there to buy meat from my fatherand that was something that the political divide could neverchange, Sir.

Asides.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: It is so alleged. There wouldhave been many a meal of a Jamaican nature involving thecurry goat that would have depended upon my fathersecuring the goat for Mr. Sandiford’s table. They have arelationship, Sir, that is so deep and so meaningful thatpolitics could not intrude in it. I know that if there wasanybody in this country who was really truly happy that Mr.Sandiford has been recognised it would have been my father,Sir, because they had a friendship that is older than I am. Sir,his speeches I think are better to read than to hear. I thinkthat even though Mr. Sandiford has a great command of thelanguage, he was in a strange way never a greatcommunicator. I suspect if he was a greater communicatorthat he would have understood in the early 1990's that whenyou are going to do difficult things for the country you haveto develop a shared and agreed perspective no matter howsound the policies are that you want to implement. I thinkthat he took the use of the language for granted withoutunderstanding that sometimes people may not necessarily behearing what you want to tell them in the way in which it isbeing expressed.12.30 p.m.

In any case, Sir, I am proud to be in a position to beassociated with the conferment of the high national honouron Lloyd Erskine Sandiford . There is a lot that has to be saidabout the history of Barbados that needs properly to be said,Sir, but one of the things that has to be said is that peoplewho come from origins that are humble in this countryshould be able to aspire to the highest offices of the land andto be able to carry their achievements to higher regional,national and international fora. Erskine Sandiford isdeserving of this honour, Sir, because in a way he representsthe best of the Barbadian way of life that is played out in thelives of countless of children throughout the 21st Centuryhistory of Barbados, that no matter how humble your originthat the children of Barbados have always found themselvesable to rise to heights of distinction and to hold those heightsof distinction sometimes against the odds.

I remember him, Sir, as a Barbadian hero in a way likea tragic figure, yet capable of being remembered with a senseof great empathy and a man of great accomplishments thatcannot be disputed. I suspect that when history comesproperly to be written it might have to be said of him that hewas indeed a man most indicative of significance.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Lucy.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speakon this particular debate. I will say from the outset that I have

December 5, 2000 10

no problem in associating myself with the words spoken. Iwant to say that Sir Lloyd caught my imagination oneSunday at a Northern Zone meeting when he made hisfamous speech that, even though at that time there were a lotof big names, he made it known that you could not reckon aleadership contest without his particular name. That is whenhe caught my imagination.

Sir, when you reflect on the facts, he was quite right.He was no “Johnnie-Come-Lately”. He was one of the mostsenior people in the Party, but yet everybody thought thatbecause other people came and they were glamorous thatthey would have been the ones to catch the imagination ofthe leadership. On reflection when he made the comment, Idid not really study it and then I realised that he was correct.Another thing that caught my imagination, Sir, was not whenhe was the Prime Minister but in the period of the crisis.

I remember, Sir, that I spent many hours on the call-inprogrammes making sure that the policies dictated by thePrime Minister were explained. I was one of the first peoplein Barbados to go to the public of Barbados to tell them thatthe best loan that was ever borrowed in Barbados was whenGovernment borrowed 30 million pounds. I remember, Sir,people telling me on the call-in programmes that I was theonly person willing to come and defend the Prime Ministerof the day. I had no problem for the simple reason, Sir, thatI spoke in this House on that 30-million pound loan and Irepeated the same thing that I said in the early 1990's. Iremember well telling the public of Barbados that anytimeyou are in a crisis and you can raise a loan of 30 millionpounds when the pound was at its highest, that is important.You remember at that time it would have been the Gulf Warwhich allowed the pound to increase in value.

I remember well, Sir, the report in the NationNewspaper saying that Barbados had landed a loan for$120 million which gave a ratio of one to four. That was verysignificant, Sir. It is so significant today, Sir, that because ofour reserves if we wanted to repay that particular loan, wewould now have to look for less than $90 million to repay aloan of $120 million that we would have received. I amsaying that was significant when you consider the time whenit was borrowed. That is when I felt I was committed to theman, which is not normal for myself. I am normally a partyperson, but I felt that in a time of crisis that someone was sobold to go and make a major decision like that in the interestof the country that I had to support the particular man at thatparticular point in time.

Mr. Speaker, also another thing is that you would haveheard me on many occasions in this House say that the firsttime in my opinion that I knew anything about globalisation,would have been in the early 1990's when the productivesector was told that they had to prepare themselves for thecrisis and certain policies were dictated to them which werenot accepted by Sir Lloyd which now, on reflection one

would recognise that if those policies would have been takenas they were given, that Barbados would have been muchfurther than it is today.

I am saying, Sir, that globalisation as I have always saidis nine years too late in this country. We had a good landingbase to make sure that we would have been nine years ahead.There are people in this country who believe, Sir, thateverything that is said to someone is information. I havestudied Sir Lloyd and I recognize that everything that is saidto Sir Lloyd is data and not information. He always felt thatif you said something to him that he should have the right tobe able to study what you are telling him and then forminformation out of what you are telling him. I admire him forthat. I think that more people in Barbados should adopt thatparticular policy. There are too many people in Barbadoswho believe that once you are told something that you shouldaccept it and run with it without studying it. I will say to anyyoung politician that he or she needs to study what is givento him or her before he or she is prepared to use what isgiven. I admire him for that, Sir.

When I heard that he was going to be knighted, I wasnot surprised because the first thing I thought of was theearly 1990's. In my opinion, you can talk about hiseducational background and what he did for education, buteverything will have to take the back burner to what wasdone for this country in the early 1990's which would haveto be the measure that would have caused him to be knightedin this country.12.40 p.m.

When the history of Barbados is written, Sir Lloydmust be the major part of that history. In a short period, onePrime Minister would have made some significant decisionsthat would have impacted on the world and not just impactedon Barbados. Now, whenever someone has to deal with theIMF there is a particular strategy that can be used and Iwould like to refer to that as the Erskine Sandiford strategyfor the IMF.

In the Caribbean, we used to go to the IMF and accepteverything given to us by them, but in the early nineties, thatchanged. I think as Barbadians we all should have beenproud of what was done in that particular period and that iswhy sometimes I question if those who took part in certainevents really knew what they were doing. When they felt thatthey were going after the man, they were actually going afterthe country.

Thank you.

Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE: Mr. Speaker, I have to saylike the Right Honourable Member for St. Peter that I, too,sat at the feet of Lloyd Erskine Sandiford. I think that I mighthave been one of the first students he taught when he

11 December 5, 2000

returned from university and came to Harrison College toteach.

He taught Political Science to the sixth form and whatused to happen then was that we used to meet in theafternoon and he would make us aware of the many thingswhich would have been happening around us in theCaribbean and in the world at large. I can think of aboutthree of us now who would have entered politics in one wayor the other and I would not be surprised if that earlygrounding that we had from him is not what actually led usto be where we are.

As I said, he was a teacher. I always feel, that perhapsthe best springboard for any office, first of – that you wouldagree with me Mr. Speaker, is to have been a member of thatnoble teaching profession. I think it allows you to understandpeople, to understand the needs of people, and I think by andlarge that Sir Lloyd had all the qualities of an excellentteacher. I would think that you would find it extremelydifficult to single out anyone in Barbados who would havedone more for education than he did.

I believe that you might find someone who would havedone perhaps nearly as much but it would be very difficultto find someone whose policies were as far-reaching as his.I do believe that there are some of us, perhaps even in thisChamber, who would have gone to places like CommunityCollege and who would have benefitted quite significantlyfrom his educational policies.

I feel almost embarrassed as I relate to you an incidentwhich happened between myself and Sir Lloyd, and I sayembarrassed because it was something of a little prank thatI played on him when I was just about to make my first timidstep into politics. I called him at Ilaro Court and I was goingto tell him that I had decided to take the plunge and enterpolitics but that I would be coming not on his Side but on theOther. Would you believe that when he answered thetelephone I told him who the person was and then I askedhim, could I speak to Owen Arthur. He replied to me, “Youwill never find him here.”

That has been the nature of our relationship, Sir, evensometime last year he reminded me of the incident. He wasalways very good-natured. If I had to say what type ofperson and leader he was it would be very difficult for me tocome up with the right adjective, the right way to describehim. In many instances, to me he was enigmatic and I thinksomething of a paradox, a contradiction. I feel that he wouldmake an excellent study for someone who is studying humannature.

There were some instances where there were so manyhighs and then you got a few lows. There were instances

when in his career there was extreme praise for the work hehas done and then he came under extreme criticism.

The other thing is that I remember when he sat oppositeme on the Other Side and the scholar and the widely readperson that he is, he would always look over and nodwhenever anyone was speaking and he would always smilewhen there was a beautiful turn of phrase. He loved theexpressions that people used and whenever someone usedone for which he thought the person should be commendedhe would just give a little nod and a little smile.

I would say quite frankly that it was a surprise to mewhen he actually became Leader and Prime Minister. I haveheard from the Honourable Member for St. John and theHonourable Member for St. Lucy that he had given someindication that he was in line and people should be behindhim but I never knew that he actually had his eyes onleadership, to be quite honest. One thing that I can say is thateven if some people today regard him as something of acompromise candidate, I think it was a compromisecandidate whom most people accepted because I think theythought that he was capable and in that regard they didaccept him as the compromise.

As the Right Honourable Prime Minister has said, onelesson which his career has taught us is that you can risefrom very humble beginnings to become the leader of thiscountry. I think that that is the kind of inspiration which hiscareer should give to others. I therefore want to close bysaying, Mr. Speaker, that I think that this is a fitting honourvery well deserved and I think that he has got it because heis indeed a true Barbadian patriot.

I am obliged to you, Sir.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to movethat the House send the appropriate Resolution ofCongratulations to Sir Lloyd Sandiford.

Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE: I beg to second that.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before I move the Resolution, I wouldlike to associate this Honourable Chair with the commentsthat have been made and, of course, I speak on behalf ofthose Members who have not spoken and especially theMembers who are presiding officers at some time. We canonly mention the help that we have always got from SirLloyd.

The Resolution before the House is that this Houseadopt the stated Resolution of Congratulations to Sir LloydErskine Sandiford and that it be forwarded to him as soon aspossible.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I have justquickly consulted some of my colleagues. We would wish to

December 5, 2000 12

record our congratulations to you, Sir, but with yourpermission and understanding we would prefer to do thatnext week in order to facilitate Government’s Business todayand so that the congratulations get the due publicity. I ambeing told on my Side that it will give us some time to dosome research on other aspects.12.50 p.m.

ORAL REPLIES TO QUESTIONS

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, I am to advisethat replies to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 20 and 22,asked by the Honourable Member for St. Lucy are ready.

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS

Hon. D. A. C. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I beg to movethat the following Standing Orders Nos. 5, 6, 16, 18, 20,42(5) 43 and 44 be suspended for the balance of today’sSitting.

Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE: I beg to second that.

Mr. SPEAKER: Government Business is now the orderof the day.

SUSPENSION

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I beg tomove that this House be suspended until 2.00 p.m.

Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE: I beg to second that.

The question that the House be suspended until2.00 p.m. was put and resolved in the affirmative withoutdivision and Mr. SPEAKER suspended the Houseaccordingly.

RESUMPTION

Mr. SPEAKER: This Sitting is resumed.

ORDER NO. 11 – PORT ST. CHARLESVALUATION BILL

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, the Bill beforethe House is to validate certain activities that have beencarried on at Port St. Charles. It is important that I deal withthis matter somewhat in its historical context.

Sir, the developers of Port St. Charles made applicationNo. 1900/11/93C to the Chief Town Planner, for permissionto develop the lands and some of the sea in St. Peter. Theapplication was approved under the Town & CountryPlanning Act, under which the application was made, by theMinister responsible for Town Planning and in accordancewith Section 18(1) of the Town & Country Planning Act.

Since beach land was involved, the application had to haveministerial approval. Before that approval was given, thedevelopers met with several agencies of Government andmade various representations which were dealt with and byletter dated September 25, 1995, the company was written tothe effect that the Minister had approved the developmentand had granted the permission.

Mr. Speaker, that permission was subject to a largenumber of conditions, each one of which I am going to readinto the record of this House so that Honourable Membershave a clear understanding of the full terms and effects of theapproval.

Sir, I will make this a document of the House.

“This permission is granted subject to the conditionsset out below and for the reasons attached thereto:

2. Submission to and approval by the Chief TownPlanner of proposals for the phasing ofdevelopment of the overall project as well asdetailed layouts for individual phases.

3. Submission to and approval by the Chief TownPlanner of detailed designs of all buildings,structures and other works including thefollowing:

1. all proposed buildings;

2. all access roads, parking area and otherhard standings;

3. all structures and works relating to thelagoon, the disposal of storm water anddisposal of sewerage;

4. details of all maritime works including .....and boat channel.”

2.10 p.m.

3. “The submission to, and approval of the ChiefTown Planner of detailed proposals for properenvironmental management and conservation,including the following –

a. Details of mitigation measures to ensureadequate protection of the marinecommunities.

b. Details of the sediment control plant,including the various components, logisticsand implementation procedures.

c. Details of the pre-nourishment of thesouthern beach with a minimum of 4,000 to

13 December 5, 2000

5,000 cubic metres of sand prior to theactual cutting of the boat canal.

d. Protection of the southern reef from anyform of development.

e. Details of measures to minimise thedestruction of other reef areas within thesite with a minimum buffer of all reefs,wherever possible.

f. Provisions of monitoring measures, duringthe construction phase, to determine theextent, if any, of the additional solidityintrusion and identification of measures fordealing with the increased solidity ofground waters along the West Coast, ifnecessary.

g. Preparation of an overall environmentalplant of the marina showing proposals forthe management of ship waste, among othermatters.

h. Proposals for the protection of theHawksbill turtle, including details ofproposed turtle hatchery.

i. Proposals for ensuring the completeexchange of water within the marina,within six days.

4. Submission to, and approval by, the Chief TownPlanner, of detailed landscaped proposalsincluding appropriate re-vegetation.

5. All necessary fire precaution measures shall becarried out to the satisfaction of the Chief FireOfficer.

6. The Chief Town Planner shall be notified, inwriting, of the date on which it is proposed tocommence any building, or engineeringoperations to which this commission relates, andall proposed works shall be properly set out forinspection by that officer, or his representativeprior to the commencement of work.

7. All development shall be carried out inaccordance with approved plans andspecification of the Chief Town Planner.

8. No development shall be started prior to theapproval of the appropriate plans, or approval bythe Chief Town Planner.

9. No further development of the land shall becarried out without the prior grant of permission

by the Chief Town Planner or an applicationmade to him, on that behalf.

The reasons stated were:

1. Ensure the proper development of the land.

2. Ensure that proper planning standards are used.

3. Ensure adequate environmental management andreduce negative impact on the environment.

4. Enhance the amenities of the area.

5. Ensure adequate fire protection.

6. Ensure the proper development of the land.

7. Ensure the proper development of the land inaccordance with approved plans.

I am also directed to inform you that –

8. Under existing Health Services BuildingRegulations l969, you are required to obtain theprior approval of the Senior EnvironmentalEngineer, Ministry of Health, beforecommencing building operations.

B. A fee of $50.00 is payable to the Chief TownPlanner for inspection of the commencement ofbuilding works.”

The letter continues: “...in addition there are other non-physical planning arrangements which must be satisfied withrespect to this development and, as a consequence, a separateletter is submitted for your attention.”

That separate letter of the same date said:

“I refer to the Planning Permission No. 3064/30,3/l6/1995, granted by letter dated September 25, l995, for theconstruction of a marina with access to the sea anddevelopment of land for residential purposes at Heywoods,St. Peter.”

“In view of the complex and environmentalconsequence which will arise from carrying out thisdevelopment, the Government has decided that there arerequirements which must be met by the developers beyondthe statutory planks.

These are:

l. An environmental reserves fund shall beestablished in order to ensure provision of the

December 5, 2000 14

mitigation measures required in the planningpermission.”

2. In the event that the developers failed toimplement the mitigation measures Governmentwill maintain a right to carry out the activities andrecover all such costs from the above fund.

3. All sand dredged from the bed or collected fromsecreted material built up on the north side of thesite shall be bought from the Crown at a rate tobe determined by Government.

The developers must enter an agreement with theMinistry responsible for land on such conditions theuse of all land below the high water mark. You arerequested to take note of these requirements. At theappropriate time, the Ministry for Town and CountryPlanning will arrange a meeting with the developers todiscuss mechanisms for the implementation of thesearrangements...”

Signed (for Permanent Secretary.)

Now, Sir, in discussing this validation legislation, thefirst and substantial point that has to be made is that thedevelopers at Port St. Charles had the permission of theChief Town Planner and the Minister under Section l8 of theTown and Country Planning Act, to the extent that beachland was involved. That permission was part ofGovernment’s normal administrative function. Therefore, thework that had to be carried out at Port St. Charles did notdepend upon any separate legislation for the effectuating ofthose works. Work was carried out pursuant to TownPlanning permission. However, Government deemed itprudent and appropriate, in the circumstances, to create aseparate piece of legislation for this development.

In the past and in the first part of the 20th Century, ifMembers would look at the Laws in the old dark greenvolume, particularly those Laws between l9l2 and l9l8,Members would see that there were a number of specificActs which were introduced in this Parliament, whichenabled and facilitated construction of, for example, anumber of jetties. They had their own separate legislation.

The Government, therefore, in the l8th Act, enacted inl996, brought the Port St. Charles Development Act. Let mejust deal with the main features of the separate Port St.Charles legislation to show how the Port St. Charleslegislation reproduced and re-enacted the permission byreference under the Town and Country Planning Act. It didone or two other things which I will address.

First of all, the Port St. Charles Development Actvested responsibility for the Act and the work in the Minister

responsible for Port Management and Harbour, the presentMinister of International Transport.

It defines works as including:

“Any wharf, jetty, slip, dock, pier, quay, bridge,breakwater, workshop, shed, warehouse, and anybuilding plant, machinery, or other property pertainingthereto, ancillary facilities or excavation, whethercomplete, or incomplete, on or near the shore, or in thesea.

So, the definition of works was very wide and veryelastic.2.20 p.m.

It then goes on at Section 3 to say this.

“3. (1) Pursuant to the permission granted to thecompany under the Town and Country Planning Act”

Sir, I read that permission just now and that permission issubject to a long list of conditions, subject to the permissiongranted.

“(a) to construct a marina at Heywoods in the Parishof St. Peter in this island; and

(b) to drive piles in the sea and to construct thereinopposite the company’s land at the saidHeywoods, the works and ancillary facilities,

the company is hereby authorised, having constructed theworks and ancillary facilities, to maintain the same.

(2) The company is hereby authorised andrequired, at its own expense, to dredge the area around thebreakwater regularly and to keep all channels free from silt,flotsam, jetsam and other debris and obstructions toshipping.”

Then it deals with failure to comply.

Section 5 was one of the compelling reasons why theGovernment was determined to bring separate legislation todeal with this Port St. Charles issue. It was to enable therights of the Crown to be reserved and we thought that weshould put them in legislation so that Section 5 says,

“5. Subject to rights of the Crown and to this Act, thecompany is entitled

(a) to the use of the works, breakwater and facilitiesconstructed thereon by the company; and

(b) to the sole use and benefit of the jetty, slip, slipand dock without payment of fees.”

15 December 5, 2000

Sir, I remember being directly involved in the draftingof Section 5 because when we were meeting with thelawyers for the development on the draft, I had to make thepoint that since it was going to be a port, the Governmenthad to ensure that there would be provision for the police,customs and immigration and the rights were thereforereserved for those departments of the Crown, to enable theCrown at all times in the interest of law and order andsecurity, to have rights over the land and to go there whenthey were doing their works and so on and Section 5 wastherefore included as a specific reservation of the Crown’soverriding rights.

The other thing that we found necessary to enact inlegislation was Section 7 of the Port St. Charles Act and Iwill read it.

“7. The land reclaimed from the sea and moreparticularly described in the Schedule is, without furtherassurance, hereby vested in the company in fee simpleabsolute in possession.”

Then, we set out the description of the land in theschedule.

Sir, that was important because the reclaimed landwould normally vest in the Crown but having regard to thenature and extent of this development, it was deemednecessary to put in legislation because you could not put itin private conveyances, that rather than the reclaimed landvesting in the Crown now, it should vest in the company sothat if they had to convey any part of that land, they wouldhave the full right and title to do so. We had to put it inlegislation to change the usual legal position in relation toreclaimed land, that is, where it would be, an accretion to theCrown and vested in the Crown and put it rather in thecompany.

The third reason for bringing the legislation in 1996was to give the court at District “E” jurisdiction over thereclaimed land. The reclaimed land would have beenformerly part of the sea and if there was a problem on thatreclaimed land that resulted in a legal action, lawsuit or somesort, you had to know what jurisdiction so we put it inSection 9.

“9. The land reclaimed from the sea and the workshall be within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court forDistrict “E”.”

Sir, today’s piece of legislation has come before theHouse because of Section 12 of the Port St. Charles Act.

Section 12 of the Act says,

“12. This Act shall come into operation on a date to befixed by proclamation.”

In the normal scheme of things, Sir, when an Actprovides that its commencement shall be by proclamationrather than by any named specific date, the procedure is thatthe Ministry responsible for the administration and operationof the Act determines when it is ready for the Act tocommence. It then sends a paper to Cabinet with a proposalthat the Act should be proclaimed with effect from aparticular date.

If Cabinet agrees to that date, instructions are given aspart of the Cabinet decision to the Chief ParliamentaryCouncil to draft the proclamation. The proclamation is ashort document requiring the Governor-General’s signature.

That proclamation is then checked by the AttorneyGeneral to see that the draft is in order. It comes back toCabinet, is approved and then sent to the Governor-Generalfor his signature.

In the case of the Port St. Charles Act, the Bill waspassed in the House. It was passed in the Senate, it wasassented to by the Governor-General some time in September1996 but there was an omission on the part of the Ministryresponsible for the Act to have the Act proclaimed so that itwas not proclaimed. It has been since proclaimed earlier thismonth. I will give the exact date to the House in due course.The proclamation is among my papers and as one politicianonce said, “I cannot see it now with the naked eye” or eventhe four that I have now...

Aside.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: ...but it was recentlyproclaimed.

Now, an issue arises, what is the status of Acts donesince the passing of the Act and its proclamation earlier thismonth? The Government’s view is first that because of theTown Planning permission which authorised the several Actsof development on the part of the company, those Acts havenot been in anyway compromised. However, out of anabundance of caution, the Government took the decision thatwe should pass a validating piece of legislation in the formof the Bill presently before this Chamber to render lawfuland valid, all Acts that may have been done prior to theproclamation of the Port St. Charles Act and, Sir, that is whatis before the House. Validating legislation in the words ofmy predecessor in office, the former Attorney GeneralMaurice King, is as old as the hill. He even said, it isprobably as old as Silver Hill. At page 6394 of the House ofAssembly debates for 1990 dealing with a piece of validatinglegislation at the time, Sir, the Honourable Maurice Kingsaid:

December 5, 2000 16

“Passing validating legislation is nothing new.Validating legislation is as old as the hill. Throughouthistory (and then he was interrupted) I was making thepoint, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that throughout historyvalidating legislation certainly in the WestminsterSystem has been used as a tool of parliamentaryprocedure.”

2.30p.m.

So let us get it out of the way to start. The passing ofvalidating legislation is nothing new. This is not a newdeparture.

It is not a new departure, Sir, because a quick gallopthrough the Laws of Barbados from 1989 to today will show,Sir, that the Democratic Labour Party when they formed theGovernment brought many pieces of validating legislation.In fact, from 1989 to 1998, 12 validating Acts have passedthis Parliament. There was an Act in 1998 No. 34 called theRoad Traffic Validation Act. We may have missed some. AsI said, Sir, a quick run through will show them.

Now let us see what these were about, Sir. I have theproclamation here. Let me just mention that. I said that I hadthem among my papers but I did not see them at the time.The proclamation, Statutory Instrument No. 91, 2000 states:

“Now therefore by virtue of the power and authorityvested in me, I hereby appoint the lst day of December,2000 as the date which the said Act should come intooperation.”

That is the Port St. Charles Development Act. This isa document of the House already as a Statutory Instrument.

So the Proclamation is from the lst of December butnotwithstanding that we are bringing the Validation Act. In1989 by Act No. 2 the then Government validated certainfiscal incentives and benefits under the Fiscal Incentives(Validation of Benefits) Act, 1989 and made that Act relateback to the 1st of July, 1988. It was to validate certainbenefits which had been given to Gulf Stream Industries(Caribbean) Limited. That is one. In 1990 by Act No. 39which commenced on the 10th of January, 1991, there wasenacted the Financial Administration and Audit (Amendmentand Validation) Act, 1990. Listen to what that did. That Actvalidated financial excesses on the part of the thenAdministration.

Government borrows from the Central Bank on theWays and Means Account from time to time. The Ways andMeans Act facilitates an overdraft facility to the CentralGovernment. Ever since 1971 there had been a Resolutionwhich limited Government’s borrowing to 10 per cent of theestimated current revenue of Government. Unknown to the

population, unknown to the Parliament of Barbados in 1990the then Government bursted its overdraft handsomely so.There was an argument as to whether the Government hadany ...

Aside.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: We knew that for thedebate in here which I had. You did not know that it was allup to $170 million. It should have been at $100 million andit was up to $170 million and then we had to validate it bythis Act.

Aside.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: No, no, Sir. I did not breakany overdraft. The Central Bank has to authorise that if youare going to burst it. That is the law, Section 25 of theCentral Bank Act. Now what was done in 1990 was providedfor in Section 3 notwithstanding anything contained in theFinancial Administration and Audit Act any moneyborrowed at anytime before the commencement of this Actin contravention of the limit specified by Resolution underSection 25(1) of that Act shall be deemed to have beenlawfully and validly borrowed. I am only giving the thingteeth.

Sir, in 1993 there was a Land Survey Validation Act.In 1995 this Government had to bring a Consumption TaxValidation Act when it was found that since April 1, 1991,consumption taxes were levied under Tariff HeadingNo. 4818. The Comptroller of Customs was collecting a lotof consumption tax in relation to certain goods under TariffHeading No. 4818 from April 1, 1991, and this Government,by Act No. 11 of 1995, backdated and validated it.2.40 p.m.

Sir, Act No. 16 of 1997, Severance PaymentsValidation of Fund Contribution Payments Act, 1997. ThisGovernment validated deductions that were made on behalfof employees to the National Insurance Scheme in twodifferent instances. One set related to the minimum insurableearnings taking effect from January 2, 1989. Weekly workerswere $21.00 per week and other persons were $91.00 permonth. In respect of the maximum insurable earnings, thesetook effect from October 7, 1991, and related to weeklyworkers who were being charged not more than $715 perweek and in the case of monthly employees, theircontribution had a maximum of $3 100 per month. ThisGovernment had to bring legislation in 1997 to validate all ofthose deductions and to state that minimum and maximumcontribution referred to, shall be deemed to have beenlawfully and validly paid and received. Sir, they were paidand received without proper legal authority earlier to thatAct.

17 December 5, 2000

Sir, the Democratic Labour Party yesterday, in anunsigned statement...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: It came off the faxmachine. The Opposition said that there had not been a pieceof legislation like this in living memory. They gave theimpression that we never had validation legislation beforeand that is why I read out the history of validation legislationsince 1989.

Sir, that is nothing new because from time to time thereare administrative errors or omissions and when they arediscovered, we cannot let it continue but the law can speakretroactively and that is what is being done in this case.

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Sir, the HonourableMember does not know his own handiwork.

Sir, I regret that we would anticipate this debate in thePress 24 hours earlier but I had to set the records straight.

Sir, I will make the document from the DemocraticLabour Party a document of the House.

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: It is a statement by theDemocratic Labour Party but if you do not want me to makeit a document of the House I do not mind. Sir, if theOpposition is now saying that they dissociate themselvesfrom this document and the content thereof, let us call it aday, Sir.

Sir, there is a pile of documents of various studies andreports which were requested by the Chief Town Plannerand the Coastal Zone Management Unit from time to time inpursuance of the conditions laid down.

Sir, I will give an idea of some of the studies that werecarried out in respect of Port St. Charles since I am hearingthat concerns were raised about the environmental impact ofthe work at the St. Peter tourism facility.

There was an Environmental Management Plan thatwas submitted and approved by the Chief Town Planner. Itis in the form of an operations manual and it dealt withcondition 3(g) which I mentioned earlier. There were salinityprofiles which were constantly monitored. In fact, before theentrance was constructed, everything was done to ensure thatthere were no saline intrusions into the groundwaterreserves. There was pre-construction monitoring of the

marine communities, submitted and approved in March,l996. Water audits monitoring were also requested to be donefor one year before being removed. There was a sewagedisposal and treatment plan submitted in May, l996. Thedesign for the breakwater and beach management weresubmitted on April 26, l996.2.50 p.m.

With the breaching of the channel, Port St. Charles wasrequired to move the plan so that beaches to the south of thedevelopment were not sand-starved.

I know that you would hear the Honourable Memberfor St. Lucy claim that last November, sand moved becauseof the development of Port St. Charles. He has said it on atleast two occasions, but has not, however, given us the otherevidence that any movement of sand was attributable toHurricane Lenny which came from the north and caused thesand to move. The sand has gone back. I hear you havelovely beaches down there now...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: That is part of theconditions, they have to condition, replenish, re-nourish, etcetera.

Sir, there were studies on physical hydraulic modeling,that were...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Those developments wereto study wave actions and there was a coastal processmonitoring study and report done. There was a proposal forthe submerged reef and if I may put it neatly, Sir, all duediligence was done at the various stages, prior to theapproval by the Chief Town Planner being given at thevarious stages and as is required, you have to havepermission for any building.

Even before the developers constructed the Port St.Charles Marina, they had a scale model developed andsubjected that scale model to various simulation proceduresthat have worked well.

An Environmental Reserves Fund has been established,Sir, and so far as I have been instructed in this debate, inl995, there have been no breaches by the developers orowners of the land of the conditions imposed and of thepermission granted...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS:... to anybody’s knowledge,to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.

December 5, 2000 18

As Leader of the House, I wish it to go in the record forBarbadians to note that I took advice in this matter fromsenior Government officials who had been directly involvedin this project from l994. They have assured me, and I haveassured the House, that there has been no breaches of any ofthe terms of the conditions or the requirements that wereimposed, therefore, to suggest that this legislation is to coverup illegalities is mischievous, unfair and wrong, because ina way it is suggesting that those who have to determinewhether the company has been in compliance or not, havebeen themselves, guilty of complicity in covering upbreaches. Certainly it is defamation, a slur and a smear on thepublic officers who have to deal with these matters on a day-to-day basis to ensure that the company has been complying.

Sir, it is an unfortunate publication that came under thename of the Democratic Labour Party yesterday and if it isnot theirs, well it is not. But whoever did it, it is amischievous and wicked thing to do. If it is attributable to theDemocratic Labour Party and is not their document, thenwhoever has caused that to be published ought to bepunished, because they are, themselves, smearing theDemocratic Labour Party.

If, on the other hand, it is truly a publication by, and onthe behalf of the Democratic Labour Party, then it ismischievous, wicked, and wrong.

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, Sir, so far asthe instant Bill is concerned, clause 2 of the EvaluationClause states:

“An action taken by Port St. Charles DevelopmentLtd., prior to the commencement of the Port St. CharlesAct, in respect of the land purported to be invested inPort St. Charles by virtue of section 7"

that is reclaimed land –

“...any activity of land is valid.”

Part of the permission brought over into the Act is thedredging of the area around the breakwater, the driving ofpiles into the sea and the construction.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough. I have giventhe House a full, comprehensive background to this matter;how it has started out as an ordinary, administrative TownPlanning approval. That approval was ingrained, withoutprejudice to its standing on its own, as administrativeauthority. It was then legislated in the Bill and we thoughtwe had to have a separate Port St. Charles Bill for thereasons which I have outlined before, in relation to reclaimedland or jurisdiction; the reservation by any agent ofGovernment of the Crown’s rights to go anywhere and to usethat right.

I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Hon. Miss B. A. MILLER: I beg to second that.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I want toremind this House that this Act was dealt with in l996 and,at that time, Sir, I had informed this House about certainproblems. Even though I had supported the project, I hadinformed this House that I had certain reservations.

I remembered one of those reservations, Sir, was thebeach, as we knew it at the time. I had questioned why wewould have such a lovely beach to the north of Barbados,and a company was recommended to build another beach tothe most northern part of the project.

I was told, Sir, in this House of Assembly, that I wasnot au fait with what I was speaking of; I was talkingfoolishness and that all Port St. Charles persons were doingwere nourishing the beach, and what a lovely beach thepeople of Barbados would have.3.00 p.m.

The facts are, Sir, that the beach to the north is lessthan 100 yards long, and those thousands of people whoformerly used the beach that was nearly two miles, must nowcompete with the fishing boats from the north of Barbadosfor available space on that particular beach.

We have a double problem there, Sir. One that...

Aside.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: ...and they claim, Sir, that ithas to do with some hurricane but the truth is that particularproblem was there before the hurricane...

Aside.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: ...Yes, it was there beforethe hurricane. Sir, when I spoke on this particular matter andI raised certain concerns in this House, the HonourableMember for St. Michael North West could not believe thatI was not misleading the House. He went by the words of hiscomrades and tried to contradict me on this particular matter.Fortunate for me, he being a northerner too, had theopportunity of seeing exactly what I was speaking and headmitted that I was right.

Sir, we had a situation where even the manchineel treeswere going out to sea...

Aside.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: ...He is my constituent andI will look after him too.

19 December 5, 2000

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have asituation and I do not want to fault the developers but if wehave a particular problem and it needs correcting, it must becorrected. Sir, we cannot allow the fishing industry in thenorth to have a problem at the expense of another project.Both projects must be accommodated and I am saying thatthe same way the developers at Port St. Charles – and Icongratulate them for being able to get the Government tovalidate whatever has occurred there – the fishermen in thenorth, who have been there for hundreds of years, also havea right to get the Government to look after their concerns.

I am saying that we need to have some place where thefishermen can haul up their boats during the hurricaneseason. I am not going to accept this excuse that a hurricanehas created the particular environmental problem that wehave in the north of Barbados.

Sir, the same way I am being told by the HonourableMember for St. Thomas that they were told that they couldnot starve the beaches to the south of Heywoods whichhappen to be in St. Peter – because all the beaches to thesouth of Port St. Charles are in the constituency of the PrimeMinister – they also have to respect that the beaches in thenorth happen to be in my constituency and they cannot,willy- nilly, come and destroy the beaches to the north. Idemand equal respect and I will fight for my constituentseven though the same person involved might also be myconstituent.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have aserious problem here and just because someone is afisherman, it does not mean that he is a nobody. Thefishermen in the north are just as important as the touristinvestor at Port St. Charles or anywhere in Barbados becauseit is the fishermen who have built Barbados.

This project only started in 1996 but those fishingboats and the fishing industry were here even before any ofus were born. I do not accept this flash in the pan, Sir, thatthe fishermen in the north must play second fiddle toanybody in this country. They have developed this countryand they have built up resources in this country so that wecan come here and pass an Act to accommodate and giveconcessions to the beneficiaries at Port St. Charles.

I do not have a problem with the particular project orwith the validation. What worries me, Sir, is that theHonourable Attorney General spent over one hour trying toconvince this Parliament that there is nothing big about thisparticular issue. Yet still, he took time out to quote 12 othervalidations.

In the other 12 validations, Sir, he said that they werewrong but for some strange reason this one is right.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, on a point oforder. The Honourable Member is misquoting me. I neversaid that, Sir. I said that there were breaches of laws in thepast, Sir, and Governments had to come after and validate.That is all I said.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: I am saying, Mr. Speaker,that we do not mind if they are accommodated. You did notaccommodate the Democratic Labour Party. What you did atthat time, you accommodated the civil servants but now thisis not about civil servants that you are accommodating, youare accommodating a private person.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Sir, that is the difference butyou have to remember that I was listening to you.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: We must recognise, Sir, thatthis project called the Port St. Charles project when youconsider the concessions given to this project, it cannot beseen as a project just to the west of the highway in St. Peter.If we are truly going to have development in the north thatmarina must be used for one and all.

For the simple reason, the owners of Port St. Charlesmust understand that they must set up a managementcompany that allows people who live in the HeywoodsDevelopment, the Maynards Development and any otherdevelopment, to be able to use the facilities for amanagement fee. This project cannot be seen as a project justfor a few people. It must be seen as a project for thedevelopment of Barbados.

Mr. Speaker, in order to be part of the marina, you donot have to live on the marina. You can own a property, Sir,in Benn Hill, St. Peter and that property can be managed bythe owners of the marina. You can own a yacht but all youare asking is to use the facilities if you are in a position toown a yacht now, Sir.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: All you are asking is forpermission to use the marina and also for the marina peopleto charge you a management fee for renting the property. Theproblem in Barbados is that we spend too much time dealingwith minor issues and not looking after the long-term interestof this country.

December 5, 2000 20

Sir, that is why I am always saying to this Government,whenever you are giving concessions, you must giveconcessions and get back something in return. You cannotjust give concessions without conditions.

I am saying that this Government had a wonderfulopportunity to tell the owners of Port St. Charles that thiscompany cannot only be seen owning as that piece of land tothe west of the highway in Heywoods. If you do not dosomething quickly about it, you are going to have a scenariowhere soon from now, people will not be able to use thatsame road that they are accustomed using called thehighway.

There are people who believe that just because they areliving in million-dollar houses, they do not want car hornsaround them and somebody will come up with a proposal todivert the road. Sir, if you put in place the managementstructure that I am speaking of, then the owners of the housesin Heywoods would not now be against the marina but theywould see themselves as part of the marina and those peopleliving in Maynards Development would also recognise theycan be part of the marina and they would be one happyfamily.

This validation would not only be for the Port St.Charles’ owners but will be also for the property owners upthe hill. Development cannot be seen in a narrow way andthis is the problem in this Cabinet. They must be prepared tosee development not only today but tomorrow and further onand this is the problem.

Sir, we cannot continue to create an atmosphere in thiscountry like we have now. When people pass through placeslike Sandy Lane, Mullins and now Heywoods, they tend tobelieve that they are passing through areas that they do notknow anymore. The walls that are being built are creating aparticular climate that Barbadians now feel unsafe travellingin these particular areas.

They feel that they are out of bounds now with what isgoing on. I am saying to the owners that they need now toreach out to the people and to make sure that the people arealso part of that particular development.3.10 p.m.

We are having scenarios in this country, and it does notnecessarily have to be at Port St. Charles, where people cameand found people working on the beaches and all of a suddenthey feel that because they could fly into Barbados and theyhave a few cents that they could buy shares and stop a manwho is accustomed making a living in this country frommaking a living.

I am saying that their investments are welcomed buttheir attitudes are wrong and it cannot happen in this country.

If they want to come to Barbados and invest in Barbadosthey have to be a player in Barbados. They cannot bring theirways from overseas and feel that they are the ways forBarbadians. When you are in Rome, you have to do like theRomans do. As long as they have developers in this countrywho cannot respect the wishes of the people in Barbados,they will always have problems with me but as long as theycan fit in with what we are doing in Barbados and respect therights of Barbadians to have an entitlement to a job and aliving in this country, they will have no problem with me.

I do not care who sends briefs to lawyers to suppresswhat I have to say, I will not worry about that for the simplereason ...

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: And I will eat the cow grasstoo.

I am saying that I was sent to this Parliament – andpeople need to study my constituency you know – by aconstituency that has the masses in it and I do not go by thedictates of a ‘too few’. I go by the dictates of the masses ofpeople in this country from whom I take my briefs. Soanybody who wants to say something to me, they have to fitinto that particular category because that is where I take mycommand. That is why when I come to this Parliament myenergies are spent dealing with the issues as they relate to themasses of this country and I will not be swayed. I will not‘unfair’ anybody. If they have a project that looks good, myconscience will guide me but if they are doing foolishness,my tongue will deal with them.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: No, I am serious about it. Soall the talk the Honourable Member for St. Michael Southwants to put down in here, I fear not.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would askthe Press in this country to take up what we called the Bibleof Parliament on page 3736 of the last session in 1996 and toread the Port St. Charles debate. It would make ratherinteresting reading. It was a very short debate but a ratherinteresting debate. One thing I can say for the AttorneyGeneral, the Honourable Member for St. Thomas, is that heis a very clever man because when I spoke on this, he gaveme an assurance and I do quote, Sir.

“Sir, if I could wind up. I give the Honourable Memberthe assurance – (the Honourable Member happens tobe the Honourable Member for St. Lucy) – that the

21 December 5, 2000

small man, people even as small as he, Sir, will havethe right to use the public access.”

That was his commitment you know. That the peoplein the north will have the right to use the public access buthe never promised me that they would have the right to usethe beach unlike the Honourable Member for St. Peter. Heis a very clever lawyer, and uses words wisely. Nobody cantell anybody that the Attorney General of Barbados ...

Asides.

Mr. SPEAKER: So where would they be using theaccess to go?

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Where would they be usingthe access to go? They will use it to go by the two by twothat is left for them and not the two miles. You seepreviously the beach was two miles long, now they have alittle two by two and the fencing has gone up and blockedthem and they have to compete for the space to the north.They now have all types of driftwood and boulders to climbacross to get on that beach but they are never accustomed tohaving that, you know, Sir.

To get to the beach to the north now, Sir, they have tofight their way between fishing boats and pray that the rainis not falling because one might slide and hurt somebody andI hope that would not happen. Do you know that thefishermen have to find some way to put their boats, Sir? Themost beautiful spot right now is the spot between Mr. Hinds’house and the marina, a lovely beach. For some reason thebeach between Retreat Corner and the Great House whichwe call the Six Men’s Warehouse...

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: On a point of order. Mr.Speaker, I have to search for the note, the HonourableMember quoted some words of mine amounting to anassurance for the public to have access ...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Alright, when you get achance you will have to read it again. I just want to draw tothe House’s attention, section 8 of the Port St. Charles Act:

“The company – that is Port St. Charles – shallprovide at the northen end of the company’s land, at itsown expense a public parking area for vehicles andpublic access to the beach”.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, theHonourable Member happens to be my parliamentaryrepresentative and I want to fire him from this debate as myparliamentary representative for the simple reason, Sir...

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: No! no! no! come on! comeon!, Things have been going pretty good with you now, leaveit that way. You are not at the Ministry of Health anymore.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: I am glad you admitted thatthe Minister of Health is worst than you now. I am glad youadmit that on the Floor of the House.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is clear tome that the Honourable Member has not driven to the northof Barbados lately. If he had done that, Sir, and it is obviousthat he went through the main gate and he did not go to thenorth, he would have understood exactly what I was sayingthis evening.

The beach that he is speaking of is the same beach thatthe fishing boats are on and it is the same beach that if therain is falling and the sand moves that you will have theparticular accident of which I spoke.

Are you prepared to apologise now, because you havea right to apologise to your constituents?

Mr. Speaker, there is a myth that we have this biglovely beach and anybody can go on the beach. Mr. Speaker,you cannot even take your students there – and you knowyou have many of those because of your good knowledge –to that particular beach because one classroom will fit andyou would have to wait until they go in the sea and comeback, Sir. That is how large that particular beach is for thewhole of St. Peter, St. Lucy and all of those visitors whoused to come to that beach.

Mr. Speaker, he is talking about car park you know, butif you put a Transport Board bus, a minibus and a cartogether, they will cover more than the beach in length. Ichallenge the Honourable Member to check it out. I have noreason to mislead this House.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Yes, you need to go andcheck it out and that is why when I am speaking about thenorth of Barbados including St. Thomas you should keepyour mouth shut.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have asituation here today where we also have to recognise that

December 5, 2000 22

there have to be some environmental problems but I do notblame the particular company for them. I would have toblame the Government, because after giving permission andafter going through what the environmental experts withinand outside of Government prior to 1996 had to say –because the Government was warned that they might havebeen certain fallouts after the marina had been constructed...Nobody can counteract that, because one only has to go toShermans and one would recognise that the beach there is insuch a precarious position that we do not know whetherwhen travelling north we would have a problem with the seameeting the other side of the road.3.20 p.m.

Sir, I am trying to find out from the Government whatis the environmental plan in place for Shermans Road. Theroad is being undermined. Things are so bad down there thatthere was a standpipe and nobody on that Side can tell mewhere the standpipe used to be. The standpipe was washedinto the sea after the construction of this project. Are youaware that there was a standpipe on Shermans Beach thatwent before the hurricane of which you spoke?

I am saying let us face it. We need Port St. Charles butwe also need to correct the particular problems that we arehaving. It does not make sense to put all the blame on PortSt. Charles because one must admit that it is also impactingon the economy of Barbados in a positive way. So if we havea fall-out from the environmental end, surely some of therevenues coming in from the project should go towardscorrecting the environmental problem. It does not makesense for us to deny that we have a particular problem at thispoint in time.

We are a tourist country and if we do not correct theseproblems at this time we will soon find that we have somelovely properties on the West Coast but we do not have ourmain asset, which happens to be the beach. If we want tofool ourselves that we do not have things to correct then wewill pay for them down the road. I am sure, Sir, that theexperts within the Coastal Conservation Unit will give youthat advice. They have always given proper advice to theGovernment of Barbados. They gave it to the DemocraticLabour Party and I am sure that they will give it to theBarbados Labour Party also because they are professionals.

Mr. Speaker, we also have to find out what is thetourism plan for the north of Barbados. Let me say, Sir,Barbados finds itself in a position where we are tellingpeople that we need to have tourism inland. If we are goingto have tourism inland, and I think the Minister of Tourismshould listen to this one – I did not see this in his tourismpolicy or on the piece of paper that he put out as a tourismpolicy – we need to make sure that we have enough beachesavailable so that when rooms are created inland we canadvertise those rooms within easy access to beaches.

A lot of people believe that tourism inland must only befor large hotels. I am saying that it is time that Barbadiansrecognise that we must put a policy in place to encourageBarbadians who have excess room to encourage tourists tocome and live in their houses and be able to advertise thebeaches as part of the package.

If we continue to depend on people to come here andinvest, whenever this country is in trouble they are going topick up their investment and run and go along about theirbusiness. The tourism project must get back to what I call thesmall man’s development project. In prior years, wedepended upon the people of Barbados to push our tourismfor us. Now we have allowed large projects to come andpeople believe now that because we have the large projectshow Bajans behave to the tourist is not important anymore.

I am saying that as long as we can keep that slice of thecake in the small man’s hands, our tourism product will bedeveloped the way we want it developed. There is no sensein having the best projects in the world and separating thetourists from the people of Barbados.

Mr. Speaker, I warn this House again that if we are todevelop as a people we need to get back to basics and allowthe people to be part of the tourism product. As it stands nowthere is a great divide and I sometimes wonder whether wecarry out surveys to understand what is going on in thetourism industry. That is why I have used many hours inParliament telling people that all-inclusive tourism could notbe the right product for Barbados. Any product that dividesthe tourists from the people cannot be the right product.What we need now is what the St. Lucians call after mymodel, sustainable tourism. That is why places like WestTerrace might be good areas also to push this particularproject, providing the MP is prepared to see the wisdom inthis project and push it for the people of Barbados.

Mr. Speaker, we have to understand that Barbadiansmust feel that they are part of this country. I am getting thesneaky feeling that they do not believe so anymore, and thatis hurting. The impression is, and not by us, that there aresome people who feel that once their land is here and theyare spending money that they have attained all the rights inthe world and that Barbadians cannot also get those rights. Ifyou want to validate we need to validate for our own peoplebecause we are also part of the development.

This is not a debate about the owners of Port St.Charles. This is a debate about the upliftment of Barbadosand especially when it is in the north of Barbados one wouldexpect special concessions to be given to make sure that themasses of people in Barbados in the north are able to get apiece of the cake. I do not feel happy to hear that people feelthat they can have a project and that the jet skis operators inthe north cannot get a slice of the cake.

23 December 5, 2000

Once this project is done at the expense of theGovernment it must be for one and all. We cannot giveconcessions and make people believe that those concessionsare only for them. This concept of climbing the ladder andthen kicking down the ladder must stop. You must climb theladder and then you must be prepared to teach people how toclimb the ladder also. If not, we are going to create strife inthis country and that is what we do not want, Sir.

Every time you hear one tourist being attacked it is anegative that we cannot correct and it is very damaging toour tourism product. That is why we have to do everythingto first make sure that the people who live in Barbados arethe ones who are happy. If you have a happy people you canafford to go anywhere and advertise and invite anybody toBarbados but if you have a restless people you can invitethousands of investors and if the climate is not right you arenot going to be able to keep them.

I am saying to the Honourable Member for St. Thomasthat any future policy must be a policy to make sure that theinvestors are happy and that the people of Barbados are alsohappy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Miss H. E. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I think thatclose examination will show that the Honourable Memberfor St. Lucy as usual spoke with a deal of enthusiasm,embellishment and colour, with significantly less accuracy.I would wish during the course of my comments to deal withsome of his comments and then go on to deal with widerdevelopment issues which I think this debate naturally givesrise to.3.30 p.m.

The Honourable Member spoke during the course ofhis comments in relation to sand accretion and sandmovement north of the Port St. Charles Marina. Sir, we needto do some scientific investigation to determine if anymovement at the beach is as a result of Port St. Charles’presence or the result of natural shift and movement.

Sir, before we speak to any movement of sand north ofPort St. Charles and attribute it to Port St. Charles, I thinkthat we should do some serious scientific investigation todetermine whether or not Port St. Charles is, in fact, toblame. If Port St. Charles is causing significant movementthen it should be addressed. We should not distribute blameand be quasi-scientists when we have no scientificqualification.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a pointof order. The Honourable Member is misleading the Houseby giving the impression that I was referring to theHonourable Member when I referred to Port St. Charles andit is not fair to me, Sir.

Miss H. E. THOMPSON: Sir, the HonourableMember spoke about the welfare of fishermen. I do not thinkit is true to say that the immediate vicinity of Port St. Charleswas a fish haul up site. The sites at Shermans and Six Men’sare still very active. I am cognisant of the fact there needs tobe further development of the fishing industry in the north ofBarbados and plans for a northern fishing terminal are on theway so that if fishermen are disadvantaged they can now beembraced when the new terminal is constructed. Let usrecall that during times of high seas Port St. Charles hasmade the marina facilities available, free of cost, tofishermen for mooring and safe harbour.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a pointof order. The Honourable Member is misleading the Houseby giving the impression that the public of Barbados can getto the beach at Port St. Charles when the HonourableMember knows quite well, from a visit to Port St. Charles,that the land has now been fenced and the public cannot getto that land.

Miss H. E. THOMPSON: Sir, if the property is fencedfor the purpose of keeping out public as opposed to makingthe property safe while construction continues, then that is amatter for the Chief Town Planner who is present here today.I am sure he will investigate it to make sure that the rights ofthe public are protected in respect of this matter.

Sir, I am not going to spend anymore time respondingto issues raised by the Honourable Member for St. Lucy togive the impression that he made a speech in the Chambertoday because there are a number of other issues which Iwould wish to deal with.

Sir, I feel that there has been a tremendous amount offocus on Port St. Charles and we need to congratulate thedevelopers of Port St. Charles for essentially what is a verygood project. I have had the opportunity to visit there. It is abeautiful site. It has been extremely well executed and isgenerating a lot of employment for Barbadians in terms ofthe tourism market at the very high-end niche of the marketand will attract the sort of people who spend large amountsof money and can be a significant foreign exchange earnerfor Barbados. It also satisfies a particular niche in ourtourism product and that is the attraction of the wholeyachting fraternity.

There used to be several cross Atlantic races some ofwhich ended in Barbados but the absence of proper yachtingand marina facilities put an end to that and the races whereeither starting or terminating at the Rodney Bay Marina inSt. Lucia and other marinas in the Caribbean. The fact thatwe now have a top-class facility puts Barbados back in theminds of the yachting fraternity as a possible venue for thestart of cross Atlantic or other races. It, therefore, is a

December 5, 2000 24

significant addition to the Barbados tourism product. Sir, Iwould really wish to congratulate the developers in thatregard.

Sir, I am particularly impressed with the aesthetics ofthe Port St. Charles Marina and the fact that they havevirtually created within the site what itself is an island as partof their own development and have worked with theadaptation of certain marine species to the changes in themarine culture and marine environment.

I believe that rather than give the impression that it isa walled property to which the majority of Barbadians cannothave access to, it would be useful for the developers to havean open day and invite the public to see what has been doneand what is being done on that site.

I would wish to speak to an issue of wider developmentabout which I am greatly concerned. There has been asuggestion in today’s newspaper and as far back as two yearsago that damage was caused to the reef off Port St. Charlesas a result of the activities of a barge which had beenanchored there some time ago.

I was informed some years ago by the Director of theCoastal Zone Management Unit that some species of coralreef grow at the rate of one-eighth of an inch per year so thatdamage to even one foot of coral reef represents significantdamage to the marine environment which cannot be easilyrepaired in our time. If the area damaged is larger than that,then the nature of the damage is significantly multiplied interms of the time for the reef to repair and rejuvenate itself.It becomes a cause of concern because of the wider purposewhich coral reefs serve in the protection of our coastalenvironment.

Sir, the coral reef structure is a significant part notonly of the aesthetics of the marine environment but certainlyin terms of the protection of the overall environment ofBarbados and in terms, in particular, of the coastalenvironment. Any damage to coral reefs in Barbadoswhether accidental or deliberate represents damage to ourcultural and environmental heritage. That is significant andit has to be carefully monitored and every effort should bemade where possible to repair that damage insofar as it ispossible for man’s effort to effect such repair. In my view,Mr. Speaker, it raises the question as to what a small countrylike Barbados should do in the context of the number ofapplications for development of projects which constituteeither a risk to the marine environment or to the overallenvironment of Barbados in some way or other.3.40 p.m.

There are a number of projects for which applicationshave been made whether they relate to offshore mining,construction that is high risk, beachfront construction, going

into the national park districts, or other districts ofBarbados, there are always developments which are goingto impact, or have the capacity to impact, on the physicalenvironment of Barbados.

I do not know if it has changed, but it was myunderstanding, that even with the Sandy Lane project theywere proposing not to bring in certain materials and not todo certain construction over land, but to barge in some oftheir construction materials via the marine environment.That, in itself, would constitute a risk.

I knew that that was the plan at one stage, but as theHonourable Member for St. Lucy so recently pointed out,since my move to the back bench, I do not have the samelevel of knowledge of what is happening in the developmentprojects in Barbados and, therefore, I cannot speak towhether it remains so or not.

The point is that if, in fact, that remains the case thatwould constitute a risk to Barbados. The other point that Iam making is that there are, and I would repeat, a number ofapplications for the development of various projects, theexecution of which, if allowed, constitute a risk of some sortto the physical or marine environment of Barbados. If thereis damage, we currently have in place no regime for theprotection or restitution in the event that such risk comes topass, and, I would wish to call on the Government today, totake the opportunity to put some regime in place that seeksto protect Barbados’ physical or coastal environment in theevent that permission is given for many of thesedevelopment projects; some of which are high risk.

I would wish to suggest that all permissions forprojects which contain such risks should require the investoror developer to put in a certain percentage of whatever theoverall development cost of the project is into a fund, that inthe event of environmental damage, there is immediatelymoney available to effect repair or resuscitation to whateveris the nature of the damage that would have been done.

Let us face it, small developing countries with limitedresources do not necessarily have the funds to effectenvironmental repair when damage takes place, insofar asmoney is able to effect repairs, because there are situationsin which full repair is never really, entirely possible but itdoes cost something to seek to put some repair in place.

If there was to be major damage to the coral reef,whose responsibility is it to do the investigation of thatdamage? Whose responsibility is it, in the absence of anyregime for protection, funds, or requirement on a developer,to pay for any repairs or restitution? Whose responsibilitydoes it become, then, to monitor the damage over time to seeif the steps to repair are having any effect?

25 December 5, 2000

Should the responsibility fall to the government? Ibelieve that the onus should fall on the developer. Insofar asthey should be made by the suggestion which I am makingtoday and that is to put a percentage of the development costinto a fund where the Government will have access to useimmediately, in the event of some damage.

One has seen significant environmental damage done,for instance, the Exxon oil spill some years ago. If there wasa company mining for oil off the coast of Barbados and therewas to be some sort of spill in our shores, without theprotection of such a fund, does the responsibility then fall toGovernment to deal with it? Would we have the financialresources immediately available at our disposal? Would wethen have to start to do an assessment and go forsupplementaries? I do not think that it should ever come tothat.

I believe we should say that the cost of damage to ourenvironment is a cost that we cannot afford to pay and thatwe should protect ourselves from that risk up front byensuring that we have an environmental protection reservefund that would be available for use in the event of anymishap which threatens the physical environment ofBarbados. If such a fund were in place, it would mean thatdevelopers would know up front that part of the cost ofhaving their development approved in the same way that theyhave to enter into bonds with banks for construction it wouldbecome part of the practice, convention and culture for thedevelopment in Barbados. It would certainly be a value to allof us to have our environment protected in that way,knowing that in the event of an emergency or mishap by adeveloper we would immediately have access to theseresources to effect whatever repair that needs to be put inplace.

It does not have to be a large amount. I do not knowwhat the cost of developing Port St. Charles is, maybe a$20 million, but I am not hearing anybody giving a figure.

Asides.

Miss H. E. THOMPSON: $400 million... I have beenconservative, but perhaps no more than .05 per cent, or l percent. An assessment can be done to determine the overallvalue of the project and the nature of the risk that mightaccrue. The project might be of significant money value, butbecause of its nature the environmental risk may not be high,or when the feasibility and environmental assessment studiesare done, very early on, depending on what risk they show asbeing constituted and constituting part of the project, thenthe percentage of the reserves can be determined accordingto what the percentage of the risk is.

I believe that if we think that our environment is notonly for our enjoyment, but for the enjoyment of generations

yet unborn and if we accept that our very economicdevelopment, our way of life, all that we know or acceptabout ourselves being a small island state, if we focus on theenvironment and the preservation of the environment in aspristine a condition as possible, then we would take whateversteps are necessary to protect our environment from the risksthat are attendant with development project, particularly thelarge-scale development project which there are applicationsfor at this time.

If the story about the damage to our reefs at PortSt. Charles is true, then that serves to support my argument.For while it is absolutely necessary to put funding in place tohave such protection, I am not aware, that Port St. Charlesitself is spending one cent towards dealing with anythingthat has been done. I do not know if they are. They may ormay not be, but the point is...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Speaker, to help theHonourable Member. There were some degree of damagedone to the coral reef in l997. That damage has been paidfor, I think to the tune of US$20,000, and the matter hasbeen sorted out.

Miss H. E. THOMPSON: It is not for me to determinewhether US$20,000 could be the appropriate compensationto pay for damage to our coral reef, but I accept that that isthe figure that has been paid and if you think that sorts it outthen it is sorted out.3.50 p.m.

My view is, however that I really would not put anysmall five-figure in US dollars or BDS dollars on theprotection of our environment quite frankly and I think thatwe need to have in place, the kind of fund about which I amspeaking. Perhaps, the developers at Port St. Charles,recognising the damage, gave the money freely of their ownvolition. The reality is that we should never be put in aposition where paltry sums for our physical environment areoffered as compensation for damage that has taken placed.

I really believe that if we are to be serious about ourenvironmental protection, then we have to havecommensurate with such development, penalties for damageand penalties, even for risks to the physical environment ofBarbados. A lot of people give lip service to environmentalprotection but really, our whole way of life and our economicwell being, are dependent on the protection of our physicalenvironment. I do not think that the kind of figure for whichthe Honourable Member for St. Thomas just spoke about, isthe kind of figure that we should be talking about.

I am making a suggestion. I am throwing it out to thosewho remain on the front bench, as my friend the HonourableMember for St. Lucy keeps reminding me today and it is

December 5, 2000 26

something I think that we should look at. It is something thatif put in place, will inure to the benefit of all Barbadians andwill seek to protect the very environment that we offer topeople for relaxation and for investment.

It is absolutely critical that we move our efforts forenvironmental protection now to the next level. I believe thatif this fund or permission for such a fund is easily put inplace under provisions for the Town and Country PlanningAct – some amendment to that perhaps – and then it wouldbe a requirement in relation to all of these projects thatenvironmental impact assessments need to be done. At thattime, it can be determined what the potential risks to theenvironment are, given the nature of the developments whichare contemplated, and what therefore would be a reasonablereserve to put in the environmental protection fund.

It would mean, if this suggestion is allowed thatBarbados would always have at its disposal, a fund forenvironmental projection readily available in the event of anyenvironmental emergency and particularly in the event of anyenvironmental emergency which is a consequence of anexternal developer who is seeking to make profit from usingthe physical environment of Barbados.

Sir, if somebody is seeking to use our environment forprofit, then we must ensure that we take every step necessaryto protect the environment from those who will make profitand walk away with their profit without paying for anydamage which we suffer and which generations beyond uswill reap. As I said earlier, environmental damage is noteasily repaired and sometimes it is not repaired at all.

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St.Michael South.

Hon. N. A. LYNCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I lend my support obviously to the Actbut I really thought it was a very straightforward Act ofParliament well within the law and one that is becomingfairly customary in our system. It may not be the most timelybut obviously, very lawful and I could not for the life of meread any mischief into this action at all, in relation to thisvalidation.

I seem to think that every week now, we create someother issue that highlights the Opposition party. I supposewhen you do not have a lot of followers that is what you endup doing, trying the Government by innuendo every week onsome issue.

Sir, I think that this simple Act of validation, as hasbeen done so many other times in this Parliament and underDemocratic Labour Party administrations as well, was well

outlined by the Attorney General, the Honourable Memberfor St. Thomas.

I think that the only issues which are important in thedebate, however, are whether or not the Port St. Charlesproject is a good developmental project, whether the worksthat were carried out at the site before the Act, were donelawfully and with the proper permissions of Government,were environmentally sound, Town and Country Planningsound and whether or not the exercise that we engage intoday is lawful and obviously customary in our system. I donot think there are any other discussions necessary.

I think though that we all agree – and I take the wordsof the Honourable Member for St. Lucy – that the PortSt. Charles project in and of itself, is a good project forBarbados developmentally and for our tourism. We needinvestments of this magnitude both local and foreign. Ibelieve the total cost of the project is somewhere in theregion of $400 million.

I believe, Sir, that marine activity adds a newdimension to our tourism as well because the same way inwhich Royal Westmoreland did at the time, in terms of whatthey built in the north of Barbados, I believe that the marineprojects add another serious and clear dimension to ourtourism product. It fits in very well with our upscale imageof tourism, not only in Great Britain but in North Americaparticularly where we are having challenges against many ofthe low-cost destinations.

This helps, Sir, to build our brand as a qualitydestination but a high quality destination and not a massmarket destination. We need the Port St. Charleses of thisworld to push the quality of this destination because we willnever be a mass market destination like some of the otherlow cost jurisdictions around us. We have a range of inputcosts that are higher than some of our neighbours and thatis a fact and I think we may be the victims of our ownsuccess.

We have to face up to the fact that we have adestination which has some costs that are going to be higherthan our neighbours. We will never be able to bring ourcosts down like Jamaica and Cuba. Therefore, Barbados hasto go after a much more discerning customer in our tourismefforts. Sir, because of that, we need entities like Port St. Charles to project Barbados at a higher level than ourneighbours and a higher level than some of the competitionaround us.

It is nothing to be ashamed of and it does not erode thebase of our tourism either. I have heard some people say insome circles that we must have marketing plans for everysingle sector. We do not need that. The Honourable Memberfor St. Lucy is seized by a high level of tourism ignorance.

27 December 5, 2000

He displays it every week in here and he tries to get thehighest levels of constituents to listen.

There is a myth in this country in some tourism circlesand pushed by the Honourable Member for St. Lucy that weneed to create programmes in every area of our tourism. Letme dispel the myth now once and for all and I want theHonourable Member for St. Lucy to listen very carefully.

Aside.

Mr. N. A. LYNCH: ...Every time there is a debate ontourism the Honourable Member for St. Lucy tries to projectthat he has this wealth of tourism knowledge. Most of it isbased on ignorance of the industry.4.00 p.m.

In destinations where there is a high projection andwhere people focus on a high level, there is always sometrickle-down effect within the society. In other words, if youhave high-level properties like we have on the west coast ofBarbados, what it does is to project the country in themarketplaces at a very high level of marketing and it tricklesdown to the other people.

Now, the perfect example of this is in the south ofFrance, the Riviera, where people have always practised this.There is a substantial trickle-down effect in the businesswhen you have flagship properties and flagship entities likePort St. Charles and Royal Westmoreland because they havea level of marketing muscles that people at the budget levelsdo not have.

I will prove the point. In Barbados where we have theConcorde flying in, British Airways flying a first-classcabin, the only one that flies a real and true first-class cabin,Britannia, Air Tours and GMC coming into Barbados, whathas been happening is that the budget numbers have notsuffered. Virgin Atlantic is flying now what we called theupper-class. What we continue to have now are high levelsof projection but it helps the ones at the bottom and that isthe issue.

That is why in a destination particularly like this onewhere there are input costs which are higher than some of thejurisdictions around us, we need flagship properties andflagship entities like Port St. Charles.

I see the Honourable Member for St. Lucy is listeningattentively.

Asides.

Hon. N. A. LYNCH: The point, Sir, is that Port St.Charles and projects like this one are necessary fordestinations like Barbados. The issue is, Sir, whether or notthe works were done lawfully. As far as I can understand, the

Bill is very clear. Sir, Port St. Charles Development wasgranted permission under the Town and Country PlanningAct to construct a marina at Heywoods, to drive piles in thesea and to construct therein opposite the company’s land atHeywoods the works and ancillary facilities.

The Port St. Charles Act was accented and gazetted inSeptember 1996 to provide for the vesting of reclaimedland in Port St. Charles Development Ltd., the maintenanceof wharves, jetties, slips, docks, bridges, breakwaters andancillary facilities constructed at Heywoods and theconstruction of a public access to the beach at PortSt. Charles Ltd. The Act came into operation byproclamation. However, the Act was never proclaimed onDecember 1, 2000. It is clear that Port St. Charles appliedfor permission under the Town and Country Planning Act.These things involved beach land and that is why ministerialapproval was sought and they actually did get approval forthe construction.

In addition to that, the project was environmentallysound as far as I can gather from what I have seen in all ofthe correspondence. The issue now is whether or notsomeone is claiming ... And the Honourable Member forSt. Lucy, the would-be scientist who has claimed that PortSt. Charles has destroyed the beach north of it, I question thewhole issue. I understand that it was caused by hurricanesand winds.

Sir, I had a good, sound education even at the level ofhigh school. There was a Geography teacher, his name wasMr. Peters, who taught me about something called long shoredrift and how beaches are formed. When the waves meet thebeach at an oblique angle, the particles of sand moved up thebeach but they drain back at a right angle and that is whatforms the beach. The beach moves along in the way the windis blowing and the way the waves meet the beach. They comeup the beach at this angle and drain back and that is why tostop the movement of the beach what you do is to buildsomething called groynes, not the ones within your legs,because that is what causes the sand to pile up and createbeaches. I would have thought that from the natural windpattern of our waves and our wind direction which is NorthEast trade, as far as I know, that Port St. Charles wouldcause a natural groyne and the beaches would have beeneroded to the south of Port St. Charles not to the north.

My concept of this and the environmentalists can tellme if I am wrong....

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: On a point of order. TheHonourable Member is misleading the House because evenPort St. Charles admitted that they had a build-up of sandand that they then had to hire equipment to remove it fromtheir property and put it elsewhere because it might endangerthe passage of yachts into their property.

December 5, 2000 28

Hon. N. A. LYNCH: Mr. Speaker, that is a non-point.Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I remember that beach and I cannotremember the beach north of Port St. Charles being any twomiles long. I was a regular there. He has now got to St. Lucy,you know.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: On a point of order. TheHonourable Member is misleading the House again. Mr.Speaker, I have never said that the beach to the north of PortSt. Charles was anything about two miles. I even drew areference in here, Sir. So it is quite clear the HonourableMember might have been sleeping because I said if you puta bus, a minibus and car side by side, that that is the lengthof the beach to the north. So the Honourable Member couldnot be referring to my speech, Sir. He still got to be dealingwith Oba, Sir.

Hon. N. A. LYNCH: Mr. Speaker, it is written inHansard. He said that the beach used to be two miles longbut let me tell you something, he now arrived in St. Lucy. Iused to go up in Clinketts. I had a girlfriend in Clinketts andI used to come right down the hill, that was a long, long timeago, to go to a beach right underneath the ridge there toShermans Beach and I remember the beach there clearly, hecannot tell me about this beach. What he is telling me is thatthe beach has been totally removed in that area because PortSt. Charles is there. That is absolute and complete nonsense.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: On a point of order. TheHonourable Member is again misleading the House, Sir,because prior to Port St. Charles, people used to haul upboats there during the hurricane season but now since PortSt. Charles has been constructed you cannot haul boats thereanymore. The Honourable Member might be right about thegirlfriend but he is not clear about the location of thatparticular beach.

Asides.

Mr. SPEAKER: The position is this. One is saying thatthe car never used to move when he was on this beach andthe other one is saying that the boats have always beenhauled up there.

Asides.

Hon. N. A. LYNCH: Mr. Speaker, the issue is whetheror not the construction of Port St. Charles has actuallycaused an erosion of the beach to the north. The point I ammaking is that from my understanding of natural wavepatterns and how beaches are formed, I do not believe thatthat is the natural pattern. I believe that some other additionalwave action at some other time and caused by some othernatural phenomenon may have caused that issue. Undernormal conditions, the construction of Port St. Charlesshould not have caused the erosion of the beach to the north.

Sir, the issue is this. I know for a fact that Port St.Charles worked with a hotel to the south of the marina to putboulders out into the water to construct groynes to be able tocontrol their beach to the south. I remember this distinctly. Iremember this particular hotelier speaking to the issue ofworking with the people at Port St. Charles to cause him toretain his beach because his property is to the south of PortSt. Charles. I am just trying to make the point that as far asI can understand I do not know why Port St. Charles, beingconstructed where it was, would have caused the beach toerode to the north. As a matter of fact, I believe that youwould end up with a little more beach than you hadpreviously. I believe that some other natural phenomenonwould have caused the erosion.4.10 p.m.

Sir, the issue is this. Port St. Charles met all of theenvironmental tests. They met all of the Town and CountryPlanning tests and I do not believe that in any way, thisGovernment has sought to disadvantage anyone on SixMen’s beach or any fisherman whatsoever. As a matter offact, this Administration has been working only in theinterest of the smaller man in this country. I say that, Sir, inrelation to the last comments that the Member for St. Lucymade regarding the whole concept of the development oftourism. He continues to speak to the issue of tourism notbeing...

Aside.

Hon. N. A. LYNCH: He did. He did mention all-inclusive and I am on record as stating that people must be atthe centre of all of our actions in tourism if we are to ever getin Barbados, the perfect tourism product. I have said that onmore than one occasion and I continue to do that. I have noproblem with the Honourable Member stating that. Peoplemust be at the centre of our tourism planning in Barbados.Whether he believes in inland tourism or not and whether hecontinues to believe that inland tourism is viable, the fact isthat as the beach land in Barbados continues now to bescarce in terms of tourism projects, we need to move inlandas well to be able to shore up our tourism revenue. Tourismmust also be for the people of Barbados first. He keepsmaking this point every time he comes here and also aboutthe all-inclusive.

I have never said anything, but I heard him say thisonce that I was advocating all-inclusive tourism. All-inclusive tourism is just another marketing niche within theentire tourism sector and one that is necessary if Barbados isto optimise its receipts from the industry. It is one part of ourpositioning strategy. There are tourists out there who demandand who want only the all-inclusive product. Therefore, ifBarbados does not go after the all-inclusive product as well,what we may be losing out on is a substantial portion of

29 December 5, 2000

tourism revenues in our country. One has however got to becareful that all-inclusives do not overrun the country and thatwe have a balanced set of tourism products in Barbados.

This issue about all-inclusives taking people away fromthe people of Barbados, is absolute nonsense. The concept ofthe all-inclusive was started in Jamaica. It was started toprotect guests from actually going on the streets because itwas unsafe. Our destination has never been one that has beenprojected as unsafe. It is simply another marketing nichewithin the system. What we have been able to do is to createanother level of all-inclusive. As a matter of fact, where all-inclusive properties are in Barbados, the tourists areencouraged to go off the property, to dine out, to partake ofother activities outside of the property and to take toursoutside of the property. Within that framework as well, it issimple arithmetic. It is not fuzzy maths. If a property wasbeing run and it had 40 per cent occupancy for about fiveyears and you sold it and it became all-inclusive, it is gettingnow 80 per cent occupancy. Two hundred thousand peopleuse more goods and services on an island than 100 000people once they are spread out and you do not have themconfined to the same suppliers. That is the issue.

I think that many of our all-inclusives are not all-inclusive in the sense as they are in unsafe destinations, butwe have all inclusive and yet encourage people to go out.The other thing that is clear that a visitor has already paid forhis stay. If you get him to go off the property and spendmoney, that is money you have for the property. So thisnonsense that I continue to hear about the all-inclusivesituation is just as necessary as having EP hotels, MAP plansor all the other plans. They are just as necessary as cruisetourism. We have many components in our tourism sector tomake up the whole.

Sir, I still want to say that we have been able to bringanother slant to our tourism industry. In just six months wehave produced a draft called “Sustainable TourismDevelopment Policy” for Barbados which has been sharedwith the people of Barbados in both national dailies as wellas in two town hall meetings to explain exactly where ourtourism strategies and policies are going. Out of that willcome our new Tourism Development Act for Barbados in thefirst quarter of 2001. Our development strategy for tourismis driven with people at the centre. The people of Barbadosmust benefit and people at all levels. This is anAdministration that cares about people. The otherAdministration had its chance and when they had theirchance the records show what they did to the poor man ofBarbados. We have been proving with our own means and byour record here what we do for poor people. I am just saying,Sir, that I lend my support to this Act. I can read no mischiefin it. I think it is important for Barbados’ development andI will continue to lend my support.

I am obliged to you, Sir.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. PhilipNorth.

Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE: Mr. Speaker, when I firstsaw this Item appear on the Order Paper, that is, the PortSt. Charles Validation Bill, 2000, I was almost sure that Iwas not going to speak on this particular Item. When I sawthis document which is entitled Statement of the DemocraticLabour Party on the Port St. Charles (Validation) Bill, 2000,I decided that I would have to say just a few words on theBill.

Indeed there were about three portions of this statementthat caught my eyes. One says that the Bill, if passed, willmean that any potentially illegal works which may have beenundertaken on behalf of the owners of Port St. Charles willnow be sanctioned retroactively. What is Barbados comingto? Is the rule of law and procedure now abandoned by thisGovernment? That caught my eyes and then a line that says,“There has not been a piece of legislation like this in livingmemory.” And then, Sir, the final paragraph that says, “NoGovernment could seriously expect to give a corporatecitizen what amounts to a pardon, for what might happensometime in the future by validating his potential illegalactions in the past.”

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for St. Thomasgave a historical background to show that only the bestpractices were in operation with respect to this particulardevelopment at Port St. Charles. Nothing was done incontravention of the Town and Country Planningrequirements. We learned from him, Sir, that the Act waspassed in this Lower House in 1996 and that the Act waspassed in the Senate in 1996 and assented to by theGovernor-General in 1996 as well. Now the Act should havebeen proclaimed but it was not. We admit that was anadministrative slip. It would have been ideal, Sir, if the Actwas proclaimed in 1996 as well.We have learnt now that theAct was proclaimed on 1st December, 2000 and what it sayshere, that the Act now comes into effect when it isproclaimed. That, Sir, is where we are. I therefore considerthis document by the Democratic Labour Party on the PortSt. Charles Validation Bill, 2000 to be a very spuriousdocument and the arguments in it to be very puerile indeed.4.20 p.m.

Someone wants to give the impression, Mr. Speaker,that there is something shocking, that there is somethingirregular, that there is something sinister and underhandabout the validation which we are doing before thisHonourable Chamber. It would be a very stupid governmentto come to the House on two occasions with something thatis sinister. I thought what you would do is to keep it as secretas possible. I do not know that you would try to come to theHouse twice if you are doing something underhand. It is

December 5, 2000 30

almost like a thief who goes into a house and writes his nameon a piece of paper in the house and virtually tells the police‘apprehend me if you can’. I do not see how you could arguethat what is happening is something underhand when wehave virtually taken upon ourselves to come and say we arecoming back to validate as is the norm and is expected.

The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that weshould not politicise this particular validation. We should notpoliticise this at all. As the Honourable Attorney General hassaid, and he has quoted from Mr. Maurice King, thevalidation is indeed as old as the hills. Any good practitionerof law should see validation as a facilitating procedure andit is intended to be just that.

Lawyers live validation every possible day. TheHonourable Member for St. Thomas has also listed about10 occasions when we have had to come to this Chamber forvalidations, so there is nothing sinister about it. It is an everyday thing in the practice of law. For example, we havesituations where occasionally the overseas clients who arepurchasing land very often sign and date property transferforms. You sign and date the property transfer forms beforeyou actually get the, Exchange Control permission. In otherwords, you are saying the property is transferred butremember you did not get the Exchange Control permission.This happens every possible day. What has to happen then isthat the Central Bank is forced to supply a certificate ofvalidation.

Sometimes you forget to get the Exchange Controlpermission. I have known of an instance where we actuallyforgot to get the permission and it would have meant that theconveyance would have been void but you could apply to theCentral Bank for the permission and when that is done theconveyance is no longer void but the validation makes theconveyance a good one from the actual date of theconveyance.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing really and trulyunknown to the practice of law. As I was thinking about thisearlier this morning I also recalled the matter of the AnglicanChurch when the Anglican Church failed to publish in theOfficial Gazette their regulations and that caused a lot ofproblems because those regulations contain things like theage of retirement and an Act of validation had to be passedto confer legitimacy on all of those Acts which wereperformed under the relevant regulations and the relevantlegislation.

This is something that we live every day. We shouldnot come in here and politicise it and try to make peoplebelieve that because it is called a validation that somethingunderhand is going on. I detest that particular approach. Therationale behind having validations done is that humanbeings will err. Mankind will make mistakes and validations

are really intended to correct human error. That is all it is. Itis an acknowledgement that if you slip procedurally that youshould not be damned eternally for that slip. You slipoccasionally, Mr. Speaker, and you should not be damned forit. Because of inadvertence, Mr. Speaker, in doing certainthings, that should not be the end of the world for you.

Mr. Speaker, this validation that we have done will alsoensure that the people at Port St. Charles who through nofault of theirs – and we have to admit that it was anadministrative slip – continued to carry out certain worksthere in the absence of the proclamation, will not bepenalised in any way. That is what it is.

We have to let the public know that that is all that ishappening and they do not have to bring this political thinginto it about people doing things underhand. We also have toremember too, Mr. Speaker, that innocent third parties wouldhave worked for and would have contracted with Port St.Charles. These innocent parties would have done no wrongeither.

Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. Under theChange of Name Act if you try to get your name changedfrom John or Ishmael or whatever to Omowale, the Changeof Name Act says that you have to publish that notice in theGazette. A month must past and then you have to publish asecond notice in the Gazette. I know of instances where thesecond notice was not published and it was not publishedbecause of the person who applied for the name change. Itwas an administrative slip. Are you going to tell me that youare not going to allow that chap Ishmael or John to use thename Omowale just because somebody slipped and did notdo that?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I would use that name.

Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE: Do you not like that name?Mr. Speaker, there are also instances where in probate whathas to happen, and the Honourable Member for St. John willknow this, is that there is a particular provision in theaffidavit when you are doing it as an executor. You alwayssay that in one calendar year, 12 months from this date youwill bring in an account for all the proceeds of the estate andso on. Nine out of 10 executors do not do that but it does notmean that the distribution will become void. These are thingsthat we have to speak about and let people know that humanbeings will make a mistake and that validations are providedfor that reason.4.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the final point which I want to make isthat Barbados is a tourist destination. We boast of a goodtourist product and Barbadians must understand that ourborders are not closed to non-Barbadians. There are people

31 December 5, 2000

who want to give the impression that this is what shouldhappen but we have to let people know that diversity ofpeople is a fact of life.

Port St. Charles, Mr. Speaker, is a part of Barbadosand it has to be accepted as such. We are a very receptivecountry and there are many benefits that we can derive fromPort St. Charles – the earning of foreign currency,employment and a wonderful opportunity to send a strongmessage to others that Barbados is, indeed, a cosmopolitansociety.

We want here to have a certain standard of living andI do not see how we can say that and at the same time saythat we do not want certain developments in Barbados.

Mr. Speaker, it is inevitable that Barbados will attractpeople who would want to live here. I know that Governmenthas to look after its own citizens and at the same time it hasto show a receptive face to those who would want to comeand live in Barbados. Government has to balance all of thosethings and we cannot be hostile to investors. It is notcommonsense for us to do this. We should ask ourselveswhich developed country does not accommodate others.Canada, England, France and the United States do it.Youcannot, Mr. Speaker, in good faith, take the people’soffshore companies and boast of the foreign exchange earnedfrom them and then tell the same people that they cannotcome and invest here.

Mr. Speaker, that is my contribution.

Mr. D. J. H. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, Sir, I havetried to listen and digest all of the contributions made in thisdebate. They have ranged from dismissing this as a minormatter to describing it as a major matter of facilitating themost significant investment for a long time in the history ofBarbados. It has ranged from flying in the face of history toa distortion of the public record. That has been the generaltrend of the debate from the contributions I have heard sofar.

Why is this Bill necessary? It is necessary because thefull procedures for bringing into effect this piece oflegislation, which was passed by both Houses since 1996,was not completed so the Act was not proclaimed. To allintents and purposes there was no such piece of legislationon the statute books of Barbados known as the Port St.Charles Act until December 1, 2000.

In any other circumstance, Government, I assume,would be very annoyed with any citizen who went ahead andacted as if a law was in place when, in fact, it was not inplace just as they would be annoyed if a citizen breeched alaw that was in place. In this debate today we are hearing thatit is a small issue even though there was no law in place, that

we are going to go back on behalf of this corporate citizenand perfect the record so that anything he did, pursuant to alaw that did not exist, he would be covered by a validationgiven by Parliament. Apparently, that is not unusual or so Iam hearing today.

I start with the speech of the Honourable Member forSt. Thomas. He very conveniently, to distort the records, inmy view, quoted only the speech of the former AttorneyGeneral of Barbados. He did not bother telling us that whenthose validations were being sought by the DemocraticLabour Party that at one point the Barbados Labour Partywarned that if we brought another validation to thisParliament they would not be supporting it. The reason wasthat most of the actions that were being validated arose outof the provisional collection of taxation legislation which theDemocratic Labour Party had adjusted but then could notcomply with.

In other words, the Ministry of Finance can imposetaxes and had to bring the law within a certain time for theprocess to be perfected but once the taxes were imposed theytook effect immediately subject to the law coming into beingby a certain time. Dr. Richie Haynes decided that he wasgoing to make that time a lot shorter. There was a longhistorical debate about it, he shortened it and said that he wasgoing to be bringing the legislation within four months as anact of great efficiency. The Barbados Labour Party tookobjections to the stance he took because it showed them upfor their inefficiency and threatened that they would not besupporting any further validation and that is part of therecord, a part that the Honourable Member for St. Thomasforgets because today, validations are small issues and do notmake much difference to public affairs in Barbados. If a lawdoes not exist but a man acts under a law that does not exit,a validation is acceptable.

I have been in here long enough to have heard bothsides of it. As I said, I am frankly surprised by theHonourable Member for St. Thomas because he got carriedaway by a statement in the newspaper issued by theDemocratic Labour Party rather than getting to the substanceof the debate. There was no Port St. Charles law in place. Itcame into being on December 1, 2000. Acts were committedbefore then as if it was in place. Whoever was to inform thepeople did not inform them that the law was not in place andthis Parliament is called upon to rectify it.

Would that other citizens in Barbados could enjoy thatprivilege from this Parliament, Mr. Speaker, Sir. Would thatother citizens could be so favourably treated. Not just withthe big investments but with the small matter like the peoplesquatting in the Belle, the people in Clifton Hall in St. Johnwho have problems which need validation, the houses sitedin College Savannah in St. John, some facing the sea, some

December 5, 2000 32

facing the road, a town planning disaster, in my view, whichthis Parliament does not have time to deal with and the listcould go on.

Mr. Speaker, I made a long list. The people in SixMen’s, St. Peter, do they not deserve a piece of legislation?Everything the Attorney General said in this debate pointedto the fact that perhaps we never needed a Port St. Charlesbuilt in the first place because there was not a single newright created under any of the sections he quoted – Section5, Section 7 and Section 9 – which could not have beendealt with under other legislation.

Mr. SPEAKER left the Chair and Mr. DEPUTYSPEAKER took the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Jurisdictions ofMagistrates, there is a piece of legislation that deals withthat. You did not need a Port St. Charles Act to deal with it.The question of the land reclaimed being vested in thecompany... Government vests land every day when thisParliament meets, either the National Housing Corporationor some other entity. This Government has the power underexisting laws to do that. 4.40 p.m.

The reservation to which the Honourable Memberrefers, or rather, the rights of the Crown did not need a pieceof law to declare them. If there was any doubt about theCrown’s powers, there is already in existence, a BarbadosPort Authority Act, which indicates quite clearly what theposition is in relation to harbours, et cetera. It already has, inits schedule, the Bridgetown Port, the Carlisle Bay, theCareenage, Spring Garden Anchorage, Speightstown Bay,and the remainder of the territorial sea. All Government hadto do was to add Port St. Charles to it, but the Governmentwanted to come in here with a big public relations triumph.

In l996, we basically took the position that it wasunnecessary then and the Honourable Member of St. Lucyspoke on some specific issues that concerned him, but we didnot fly in the face of the Government’s desire to show off. Itwent that route, the Act was not proclaimed and now it findsitself with this nonsensical situation of validating an Actwhich never took place apparently in respect of a Bill thatwas never necessary, in the first place, largely because agovernment, which is being driven by public relations andpropaganda, will always find itself in this blare-eyedsituation, driven by things and propaganda.

When Government brought the Port St. Charles Bill, itwas not offended then that the newspapers wrote about thePort St. Charles Bill coming to Parliament before it came. Onthe morning that the Bill came, the papers had all theinformation on Port St. Charles beforehand.

So why would Government be annoyed that there is alittle criticism in today’s paper about the validation of a Billthat was not necessary to validate Acts in Parliament, which,apparently, never took place. That is complete absurdity ofwhat is going on in here.

The reason why it is dangerous is not the Bill in itself,or anything it validates, or does not validate, it is because, asI say – and the Honourable Members on that Side will saythat we are trying to create envy, if we say this – in my viewthere are some other development disasters in Barbados, andI have already described one that is in St. John, in relation tothe way the layout of College Savannah is proceeding, thatneeds attention.

There are problems in the Belle which the HonourableMember for St. Michael East had to get up in this House, andremind us of, which do not attract the attention that corporatecitizens have got.

Let me remind the Attorney-General of this, because hehas forgotten this as well and distorted the record to theextent that he did not remember. Every single othervalidation that this Parliament ever had to do was to validatethe Act of a public functionary, whether the Act of aMinister of Finance, a statutory corporation, the NationalInsurance Board, but never the Act of a private citizen in thehistory of this country.

The closest that anyone can point to something like thatwould be a Bill passed some years ago. I am going to put thatin the record, because I know that Honourable Members onthat Side have forgotten it, but I do not want to be partisan,I want to be balanced, as the Honourable Member forSt. Philip North called for and as one of his constituents, Iwill comply.

There was a Bill brought in this House years ago, inrelation to a limitation of remedy in respect of scientificresearch. It gave the person the rights to damages. It did notcompletely remove the remedy, but it limited their remedy,so that they could not get an injunction, or other forms ofrelief from the courts. That was in respect to, I think, theBelair Research Institute and the Space ResearchCorporation. The Barbados Labour Party then came intooffice and replaced those by the Meteorological Institute, theU.S. Weather Service, the Natural Gas Exploration, andsome other area, so there are about four areas. I know thehistory of Governmental activities, in respect of which alimitation of remedy had applied.

So, as I said, you create, spit up in the air, the spit iscoming back down, and now it is coming back down, theGovernment has difficulty trying to extricate itself bytalking about the validation of a piece of legislation that wasnever necessary, in the first place.

33 December 5, 2000

The people had the right Town Planning permission,so, apparently, that was not an issue. No one on this Sideever questioned the validity of the project. We always saidthat it was a good project, but it was not a project thatrequired its own piece of legislation but, therein lies theproblem. The Attorney-General of Barbados, when he wasmoving the legislation, indicated his motivation for it. It wasnot drafted by a Select Committee of the House of Assembly.It was not drafted by a Committee of Backbench Membersof the Barbados Labour Party. It was not drafted by anyParliamentary team. It was drafted on the advice of theParliamentary Council and his department, and the lawyersfor Port St. Charles.

So, we are dealing with a different kind of validationtoday and no one can come in this House of Assembly andquestion that statement that was made by the DemocraticLabour Party, because that statement was made against thebackground of the facts.

There is no other occasion in living memory. There aresome people 110 years old and they cannot point to any,except... I do not even know if we have any exceptions inrelation to public utilities in Barbados or any of them thatyou had to bring a piece of legislation like this.

All of the laws in Barbados cover all of the activitiesthat were undertaken at Port St. Charles, and I am going toask the Attorney General to explain to me, with all hiswonderful drafting of the Port St. Charles Act, what powersthe Government has. Since it is not scheduled under theBarbados Port Authority Act what are the powers that theGovernment has to control the landing of passengers and allof the other customs and activities, that are apparently,required at Port St. Charles, but are not anywhere in thislegislation? I am asking the Attorney General.

Is it a scheduled harbour, is it under the Customs Act,generally? That is what the Attorney General needs toexplain, because it was not done in the original debate. It wasnot done today except by a passing promise and to the bestof my knowledge there is no reservation of those powersanywhere in this legislation, assuming it was necessary.

So that, as I said, Mr. Speaker, Sir, what we have todayis a debate on a Bill to validate Acts that do not needvalidation. Apparently, they were always lawfully done,whether the Bill existed or not in respect of activities thatnever require a Bill.

Why was the Bill brought in the first place? Why didwe not amend the legislation that already provides for theJurisdiction of Magistrates, for the vesting of lands, and forall of the other things that were brought separately under thisPort St. Charles Bill which, as I said, is a major departure

from the way in which matters of this sort were handled inthe past.

If the persons at Port St. Charles did nothing wrong,then nothing needed to be validated, or questioned in anyway. If the Honourable Member for St. Thomas assures usthat everything is, was, and will continue to be above board,there was never any need for legislation like this, except, asI said, purported for public relations, propaganda, howeveryou might want to put it. It was very nice when it was drawnup, because it gave persons a chance to talk about how muchis being done to facilitate private investment. No barrierswere to be placed in the way of the investors who wereinvesting at the Port St. Charles, and I never realised that thebarriers would be so knocked down that there would be evenother validations for Acts that never took place and be givena Bill to cover their activities when they did not require one.But it shows the extent to which the Government will go forsome people in Barbados and the extent to which it willignore others.4.50 p.m.

I think the Honourable Member for St. Lucy needs tobe congratulated for the fact that he has raised concernsabout the beaches and the access to those beaches and theconfiguration of those beaches in the area around Port St.Charles. The Government has a responsibility not to criticisesomebody who raises those concerns about matters in hisown constituency, not to accuse him of ignorance whether inthe pejorative sense or otherwise but to take those things onboard and to respond to them sensibly.

It is only when you look at the debate from a partisanway, as did some people, the Honourable Member for St.Philip North asked us not to be partisan and we are not beingpartisan but there were others who saw it purely in a partisanway. Therefore, they did not even take the advice of theHonourable Member for St. James South and avoid givingscientific information when it is clear that they do notpossess a fraction of the qualifications or knowledge whichwill be required to make that kind of judgment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is why I say that we need toaccept that there is something unique about this. We are notgoing to stand in the way of the Government. TheGovernment has a right to do its public relations and theOpposition has a right to respond on behalf of the people.Sir, all that was done by the Democratic Labour Party, wasto lift the veil and try to point out to the public that all is notwhat it seems in relation to Port St. Charles.

We support the physical development of that area, thejobs that it has created, the investment that has beenundertaken but we have to wonder why it was necessary tosend the kind of signal that was sent to this developer and toothers who have been given special legislation and in this

December 5, 2000 34

particular case, why the act of a private developer, takenwhen a law did not exist under the aegis of that law, could bevalidated. Yet, why the Acts of other citizens in Barbados,who may have misunderstood even existing laws or may findthemselves functioning under the same basis, cannot havetheir actions validated by this Parliament. They cannot havetheir concerns brought to the fore by this Parliament andcannot receive the kind of special and important treatmentthat is necessary. That is all. Those are simplestraightforward questions and I am indebted to you, Mr.Deputy Speaker.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Memberfor Christ Church West.

Sir HENRY FORDE: I wish to speak very briefly onthis debate, principally as a lawyer in order to, I hope, clarifyfor the benefit of the Honourable Member for St. John, thereasons why legislation such as the Port St. CharlesDevelopment Act is passed.

Unfortunately, it has become prevalent nowadays inpublic life for short-term political reasons to deceive peopleabout various matters. Although I am sure the HonourableMember has no such intention. Yet, one must be veryguarded in Barbados at this moment where obviously,persons are pontificating on matters without doing thenecessary research.

This is not the first time in the history of Barbados thatlegislation has been passed to give people the right toestablish break waters, jetties, slips and docks. Thelegislative history of Barbados is replete with legislationwhich conferred on the private citizen, the right to establisha jetty or a dock.

If such legislation was not passed, the private citizenwill be affecting the public rights because beyond thehighwater mark, ownership of the sea, the beach and the sea-bed is vested in the Crown. As a result, if you read the lawdealing with the sea shore and the fore shore, you will seethat not only here in Barbados but in all common-lawjurisdictions whether it is Australia, Britain, Canada orelsewhere, legislation of this sort is necessary.

Now, I said there are series of Acts in Barbados whichhave not been repealed still and where private citizens forgenerations and for centuries have had these rights conferredon them, subject to reserving the rights of the Crown,meaning there, the Government acted on behalf of the peopleof Barbados. When the Port St. Charles Development Actcame before this House and it was debated on August 20th,1996, it is significant that no objection was taken to eitherthe necessity for the legislation or indeed the content of thatlegislation.

In the House of Assembly at the time, the three mainpolitical parties were fully represented and the HonourableDr. Richard Haynes was then on behalf of the NDP. Sir, inthe House, the Democratic Labour Party was fullyrepresented and among their representatives was theHonourable Member for St. Lucy, the then HonourableMember for St. Philip South, Mr. Stuart, the thenHonourable Member for St. Michael West, Mr. BranfordTaitt and the then Honourable Member for St. Michael East,Mr. J. O. Tudor so that there was full representation of theDemocratic Labour Party. The present Leader was not therebut the Democratic Labour Party took no objection.

The Democratic Labour Party welcomed thedevelopment. The Honourable Member for St. Lucy spokeand it is really strange that at this moment, the DemocraticLabour Party in less than four years seems to be standing onits head, as it is doing on so many things, with a short-termpolitical benefit of characterising the Barbados Labour Partyas only acting in the interest of big people and not in theinterest of small people. That nonsense is being perpetratedin Barbados consistently and unfortunately, there are somepeople who believe it. The inconsistency of political partieswill undermine people’s belief and interest in politicians,including in the Leader of the Opposition if we continuealong this line. One must understand that.

Sir, first let me make the point again. Legislation suchas the Port St. Charles Development Act is not new toBarbados. It has been passed for centuries in Barbados.Anyone who takes the trouble to research the law inBarbados would see that it was necessary and it is necessarybecause as long as you are allowing a private citizen toimpeach on the beach and go into the sea, you have to passthat sort of legislation. It is wrong to give the public the ideathat this Government, at any time has done anything that isagainst the interest of the people of Barbados.

The further point I want to make, Sir, in the legislationitself, a very good drafted Bill, the Government reserves theCrown’s position in order to safeguard the rights of thepeople. Section 5 says,

“Subject to the rights of the Crown and to thisAct, the company is entitled to do various things.”

Absolute reservation, now I do not know how any gooddraftsman would reserve the people’s right, whether they beblack, white, blue, brown, small, large or any size, other thanby that form of legislation. Sir, I do not know what theHonourable Member is talking about. I am really surprisedthat the level of politics in Barbados is now getting to thissort of depth. I am really surprised and we must stopmisleading people on these issues.

35 December 5, 2000

Now, I want to deal with the Validation Bill. ValidationBills have been brought here in my 29 years in thisParliament on several occasions. From the first year I camein here, the Democratic Labour Party was bringingValidation Bills before Parliament. The Barbados LabourParty brought those Bills and it brings the Bills becausesometimes the administration slips up and therefore a Bill isnot proclaimed on time.5.00 p.m.

If the Bill is not proclaimed on time, it would be areckless Government which did not seek to validate itprovided that it is doing so without affecting any rights ofcitizens that may have been accrued during the time when theBill was passed and the act of validation took place. You willsee that some Acts of validation will reserve those rights.

When I look at the Draft Bill before the House I askedmyself, was there anything being validated in which a thirdparty right would have been affected? Mr. Deputy Speaker,it is necessary to read part of the Bill. What Section 2 of thisAct is doing is validating anything done by Port St. CharlesDevelopment Limited in respect of only three things, the landperfected to have been vested in Port St. Charles by virtue ofSection 7, the dredging of the area around the breakwater atHeywoods, the driving of piles in the sea and theconstruction of the works and ancillary facilities connectedwith it.

Now those are the only three things that it hasvalidated, and it is validating it if the things had beenlawfully and validly undertaken. If the Port St. Charles Acthad been enforced on September 18, 1996, it would not bevalidating it if they had done illegal things on September 18,1996.

So once again, I find it difficult as a lawyer tounderstand the argument of the Honourable Member that theGovernment is showing a preference for Port St. Charlesover a small man up in Small Town in St. John or up inDayrells Road because I would be the first in here as aconstitutional lawyer and otherwise to get up and chastise theGovernment. One thing I am not going to do though is goand mislead the people outside, that is one thing I am notgoing to do, Sir, on matters of this nature.

I really believe that the Opposition can score pointswithout bringing down the level of our standards of debateto go in for matters that I do not believe in their hearts theyreally seriously think ought to be made issues of and this isone such. I will tell you why, Sir.

The Honourable Member was forthright to recall whatI call the Harp Bill, the limitation of the actions. If thislegislation was going to have what the Democratic Labour

Party did to the people of Christ Church West in BlueWaters, – that is one of the areas he probably would notwant me to mention because you are going to hear that is awhite area – Golf Club Road, Fordes Road, Oistins,Scarborough, Chancery Lane and in Ealing Park, then Iwould be making a noise again with the Government becausewhat they did is that they gave not a local Barbadian citizenbut by legislation they came into this House and into thisParliament and passed a Bill taking away the rights ofcitizens to get an injunction to stop Harp from firing a gunthat shook the very foundation of their houses. You have gotto remind the Democratic Labour Party and the people ofBarbados of this you know.

Asides.

Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE: Yes, the HonourableMember for St. John was born. It is not a history of whichhe feels happy. I fought that Bill through here and I broughtin legislation to repeal it. We repealed the schedule. It hadno effect at all, you know, because Harp is such a sadoccasion. When I was Minister of External Affairs, I wasembarrassed one night when I was in Canada to see aprogramme from the BBC showing how Harp was beingused to send guns to South Africa to shoot black people.

Nowadays, when I hear the Democratic Labour Partyon this small man, poor man, black man and all that, I do notbelieve that these are the real same people. Are they reallythinking? That Democratic Labour Party allowed Jerry Bull,one of the top spies, who was assassinated eventually, and aman who on the surface seem to like black people butdeveloped the type of guns to kill the poor, black people andmillions in South Africa...

Now, honestly, when you really think of these things,this so-called objection, this front page today, this issue of astatement, who really is seeking publicity and‘pompasetting’. You got to remind Barbadians of this.Nowadays, I do not speak too often, Sir, because I listen butI am worried about the country in circumstances where themain Opposition party believes that every day they must putout tripe and foolishness, without doing proper research andthe Government is going to be hung on the basis ofmisrepresentation rather than on proper debate as we used todebate and as we used to come and do the research in daysgone by when there was three of us in Opposition.

We did not depend on any Press to help us. We werethe three blind mice over there and there were two blind miceas well up in the Senate. We did not depend on the Press tohelp us, we came and did a proper job.

Asides.

December 5, 2000 36

Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE: Even the DemocraticLabour Party... That is right.

Asides.

Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE: I am very glad theHonourable Member sotto voce, would not stand up...

Sir, I demonstrated in front of the CaribbeanBroadcasting Corporation (CBC). You know why, Sir.

Asides.

Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE: That is the point I ammaking. In those days, the Democratic Labour Party had itso stacked up against us that a group of us, the three of us,had to go to demonstrate outside CBC because we could notget our ....

Listen, I hear the Leader of the Opposition this timemaking a speech at Independence but the Democratic LabourParty in those days would not allow me to have a speech.

Mr. D. J. H. THOMPSON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir,not a single speech...

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On what point do youspeak?

Mr. D. J. H. THOMPSON: On a point of order, Sir,...delivered by the Democratic Labour Party at any publicmeeting in our series had been carried on either CBC radioor CBC televison. What he heard may have been on Voiceof Barbados (VOB) but not on CBC. Not at all.

Asides.

Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE: Sir, I am not even talkingabout that. I am talking about making a speech as abroadcast of an Independence message.

Asides.

Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE: The Honourable Membermust listen before he takes objection. The DemocraticLabour Party never extended that courtesy to me when I wasLeader of the Opposition. They never. At Christmas I wasallowed to make a little five minute speech.

Asides.

Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE: What are you talking aboutat all? I have been in public life in this country too long tobe lectured by the Democratic Labour Party and people as towhat is the standard with democracy that we expect in thiscountry. That is the position.

The Honourable Member could rant and rave, I amgoing to put the blows on him today so he could sit downand listen to them.

Asides.

Hon. Sir HENRY FORDE: The point is, the blows arecoming. The Democratic Labour Party are only recentconverts to understanding the democratic rights as theyshould be practised in this country.

I want to say, Sir, that there is nothing in this Bill thatshows any preference for anyone. It is a correct legal step totake. It is not out of context with any proper legal procedureand it is not a Government seeking to discriminate betweenit citizens on the basis of whether they are big or small.

I want to add my voice to a point which has been soforcibly made by the Right Honourable Member for St.Peter. This country will not progress without foreigninvestment. The Honourable Member will say it in hereseveral times. We have not got in Barbados the capitalformation nor are we able by our own efforts, by our exportsor by our sales of services to generate the capital necessaryto develop this country in order to increase the standard ofliving of the poor man in particular, or anybody else in thiscountry. We obviously have to depend on foreign investmentcoming into Barbados. It is significant that successiveGovernments since the 1950's have been encouraging foreigninvestment.5.10 p.m.

Aside.

Hon. Sir Henry FORDE: Sir, I know that when I wasLeader of the Opposition that he did not have much senseand I still know that. He wants to know what I did when Iwas Leader of the Opposition. If he is going to talk all of thetime, I will have to give him a few digs.

The position is that this country needs foreigninvestment and we are competing within the very Caribbeanfor foreign capital. Now if you read the journals, you will seethat Barbados did not attract, even on a per capital basis,foreign investment on the level that was attracted in Trinidadand Tobago or even Jamaica at this time. Barbadians mustunderstand that foreign investors are not out there queuingup to come to Barbados because it is some special place.They are going to come in because they want to make aprofit. Wherever we can encourage our citizens instead ofhiding money or sending it outside or investing it elsewhereto reinvest in Barbados, that should be our first priority andthen foreign investment afterwards.

One of the reasons why I believe that a developmentsuch as Port St. Charles is necessary because it is a case of

37 December 5, 2000

getting your own citizens to invest their savings back into thecountry in order to maximize opportunity of employment forpersons and to get growth going. I am not saying that anyinvestor, foreign or domestic, should be given ‘card blanche’to ride over the rights of persons. I think that it is wrong ifwe give the public the attitude that this country can progresswithout foreign investment.

Sir, it is at times like these when our economy is strongthat people hold on to emotive topics in an effort obviously,to project themselves and, I suppose their parties to recouplost ground. One must be careful in following that line ofpolitics that one does not eventually destroy the economythat if at anytime the Democratic Labour Party comes backto power it would not have much to look after. So one has tobe very, very careful in those circumstances that what yousay does not come home to haunt you.

Sir, I see a lack of consistency in the stand which isbeing taken by the Democratic Labour Party on several ofthese issues. Take for instance, Sir, the question of landownership. I have been in this House to see the DemocraticLabour Party bring to this House an Aliens Landholding Bill.It never had the guts to pursue it. The then HonourableMember for St. John withdrew the very Bill because he saidthat if he passed the Bill it would stop aliens from holdingland in Barbados and the whole economy might collapse.

Now the Democratic Labour Party is all aboutBridgetown these days and all through the country talkingabout legislation such as this. That is the Democratic LabourParty you know. People do not have long memories but it isvery necessary to remind the Democratic Labour Party of itshistorical performance on some of the issues that it is nowputting to the front as land ownership. I repeat again. TheDemocratic Labour Party brought to Parliament an AliensLandholding Act and then withdrew it. That was to preventforeigners from owning land in Barbados other than by alicence, but it withdrew it.

Aside.

Hon. Sir Henry FORDE: As I will tell the HonourableMember again, I always knew he had no sense but I hadsense even then to realize that such a Bill was not necessary.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Memberplease desist from interrupting the speaker. Thank you.

Hon. Sir Henry FORDE: I am accustomed to hisbehaviour. It is usually puerile whether he is sitting orstanding. It does not bother me, Sir.

The position is, Sir, that they must learn someconsistency if he wants to be a true leader and reallyinvolved in policies that are based on factual research andcreativity rather than this slight off-the-hand attitude that hetakes on serious issues. That is one of the reasons that Idecided to speak on this Bill in the way that I have spoken.I believe that the Bill is correct and that it was brought inorder to validate a position that clarifies the law as it standsand that it does not seek to close wrongs and to hide wrongs.

Aside.

Hon. Sir Henry FORDE: The Honourable Memberwants to know about Bonnetts. I will invite him anytime hewants to come. As a matter of fact, Sir, I would like to invitethe Honourable Member to let me take him through parts ofSt. John because I have not seen him up there for a long timeand his constituents wonder what has become of him. If hewants that, Sir, I will take him on a tour of his ownconstituency and then take him to Bonnetts, Sir. All is wellin Bonnetts so he should not bother.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I therefore give my supportto the legislation.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Right HonourablePrime Minister.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Ihave a constituency interest in this matter and I will speak insupport of the legislation that is before the House. Sir, mostof the legal and technical issues concerning this ValidationBill have already been dealt with in full detail such that thereis no good reason why I should have to tire the House witha repetition of the technical and legal issues which have beengone into great exactitude. May I say, Mr. Deputy Speaker,that there will be occasions in an administration as someonesaid manned by 25,000 people where things are not done ina proper way. I am not casting any aspersion on anyindividual, Sir, but in an administration of 25,000 people andmany different Government Departments there may beinfelicities but I give the House the assurance that there willbe zero tolerance to corruption by this Government. Therewill also be instances where there will be administrativeslips. There is no administration that is so perfect that fromtime to time there will not be an administrative slip. I am alsogiving the House the assurance that if there is anadministrative slip the Government will in pursuit of goodgovernance in this country, acknowledge it and seek torectify it at the earliest possible opportunity. If there arepersons who might have been injured by any slip on the partof the Government, I further give the assurance that theGovernment will move with alacrity to compensate them.5.20 p.m.

December 5, 2000 38

That we will do so, is already borne out in the fact thatwe would have once had to pay as an Administration over $3million for a major administrative error committed by theDemocratic Labour Party in revoking a Town Planningpermission for an investor at Batts Rock. We know what itis to pay for other persons’ administrative slips. What I canalso give the House the assurance, Mr Speaker, is that thisadministration is not going to willfully break the law, andhaving broken the law, then come to this Parliament withActs to validate those breaches of the law. I want to repeatthat point, Sir, because in this debate that is the essentialdifference between our approach to this validation where weare correcting an administrative slip which involved nomalicious breach of the law and the way in which validationshave been applied by the Democratic Labour Party in thepast.

This Barbados Labour Party Administration will notwillfully break the law and then use Validation Acts tovalidate those breaches. I make that point very deliberatelybecause beginning sometime in 1989 about June, the formerMember for St. Michael South Central, and I began tochronicle the way by which, month by month, a slow-motion,economic, horror story was unfolding in this country fromJune 1989, month by month, where our reserves wereplunging and the plunge in our reserves were being madepossible by the Government of Barbados of the day havingthe Central Bank extend to it an overdraft that was drasticallyin excess of that which was set by statute.

Although, month by month, Mr. Deputy Speaker, webrought it to the Government’s attention that they werebreaking the law, it continued to break the law, bankrupt thiscountry, put us in the hands of the International MonetaryFund and, despite warnings from this Floor that the law wasbeing broken, the actions continued to take place. Then,sometime in 1990, a Validation Bill was brought to makelegal what the Democratic Labour Party was told even whileit was happening that it was illegal and wrong.

Those are the kinds of Validation Acts that this Houseshould set its face against. The Democratic Labour Partyshould be ashamed therefore to say that there has not been apiece of legislation like this in living memory when they wellknow that they have brought validation legislation to thisHouse, not to correct an administrative slip but to validatethings that they did unlawfully knowing them to be unlawful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, perhaps I need in this debatenot to speak technically on the matter but to the politics ofthe matter. I recently gave a speech when I saideuphemistically that the Democratic Labour Party had beentaken over by a group of wild boys. I said so, Sir, and I wascastigated for saying that the Democratic Labour Party had

been taken over by a group of wild boys. Today, the Leaderof the Opposition gave full validation to that statement whenhe made it clear that a statement purported to be written onbehalf of the Democratic Labour Party was actually not onbehalf of the Democratic Labour Party. One is left to ask thequestion what really is happening to the Democratic LabourParty when a statement of this severity can be written onbehalf of a Party but the Leader of the Party dissociateshimself from its authorship.

It says, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is somethingvery rotten at the core of a political institution and verywayward when documents of this nature can not only bepublished and widely circulated, but can engage the frontpage of the national press but the political institution that isseeking to make political capital of it through its leader issaying that he cannot accept responsibility for it, that eventhough it is in the name of the Democratic Labour Party hedoes not know who its authorship is. This could only happenin a political institution where you have a collection of goonsand wild boys now running affairs and those persons whothought that I was too harsh will now see in this evidence theprecision of my definition.

I must also make the point, Sir, that what is in evidencenow in the Democratic Labour Party is a form of politicalrecidivism, that if there were some way that the organisationcould be arrested for the first time in history it would bepossible to arrest, fine and confine a political organisation.Recidivism, I think, Sir, accurately refers to a situation wherea person is a repeat offender and that there seems to be norestraint on the person’s capacity to indulge in unlawful,illegal and improper behaviour. The whole recent history ofthe Barbados Labour Party bears out that a force of greatrecidivism, a willingness and ability to keep repeating andrepeating things known to be either unlawful or untrue, hasnow taken over the politics of the Democratic Labour Party.

Sir, I am not making light of a serious matter. It startedwith the secret deal. There are certain persons in Barbadoswho tell me that they went to Queen’s Park in 1994 and thatthey were among a host of tens of thousands to hear theDemocratic Labour Party reveal the details about a secretdeal that we had entered into with the International MonetaryFund.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the Leader of the BarbadosLabour Party, I would not know how to make a statementlike that in public. I would not know how to face the menand women of the Barbados Labour Party if I were to givevent to a lie as monstrous as that and not only to give lie toit but to know it to be a lie and then to encourage the publicto come and hear a lie and then cannot produce the facts tosupport my allegations. It has gone on and on.

39 December 5, 2000

We have heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we have seenstatements like this not unsigned but signed by the Leader ofthe Opposition purporting to assert that it was within theknowledge of the Leader of the Opposition that the BarbadosLabour Party had given $200 million to the Barbados SugarIndustry Limited for three old factories in return for politicalfavours.

I have gone on record, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I goon record again as calling upon the Leader of the Oppositionto summon the Public Accounts Committee in public ifnecessary and to summon me to give evidence about matterspertaining to transactions involving the BSIL and the sale ofsugar factories that has not yet taken place.

We could go on, Sir. Week by week, now in Barbadosthis country is to be exposed to a sad political spectacle. Lastnight the International Monetary Fund gave this country areport that I suppose from an institution that has been harshon the economic performance of various countries would beregarded by any standards as an outstanding report.5.30 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, today the International Labour

Organisation at a seminar, proclaimed that they want to holdup Barbados as a model not just for the developing countriesbut for the entire world, in relation to the way in which weare running our tripartite affairs. There is no crisis in theaffairs of this country, Sir.

As I have said before and I will say again, Sir, we aremanaging one of the most robust periods of economicdevelopment in the country and we are also undertaking oneof the most imaginative processes of social transformationand social development in the entire history of this countryas well. From time to time there will be niggling problems,Mr. Deputy Speaker, and in the absence of a serious crisisthose niggling problems will come to assume a significancethat goes beyond their ordinary merit. There is no crisis inthis country and this country’s affairs are wonderfully well-run. There is an imaginative development programme beforeBarbados that can command the support of the population atlarge but there is an Opposition that has grown desperate.

The Leader of the Opposition had now led his party totwo massive defeats and unless there can be evidence ofstrive and crisis in the country the Opposition knows that itspolitical chances will be grimmer and grimmer. Hence, Mr.Deputy Speaker, there is a concentrated, consistentprogramme by this new element in the Democratic LabourParty, who bear no relationship to the pedigree that ErrolBarrow would have established for his Party, to keep thiscountry off-balanced by plunging our politics to a new depthin which innuendo, contradiction, the politics of envy and

this anonymous wildcard approach to the denigration of theinstitutions become the hallmark of the politics of Barbados.

Sir, what form is it taking? Cowardly people are notprepared to sign their names to the cowardly statements butnonexistent institutions are being invented in which the samegroup of wild people are being recycled among theseinstitutions with these familiar acronyms each to stage in itsown separate way a platform to ferment strife anddissatisfaction within the population of Barbados.

Sir, there was the formation of a group called GAGGno doubt financed by the same people who financed thecreation of a post for research within the DemocraticLabour Party Opposition office and who spent $200 000financing the Family First advertisement. Now there isthis group called GAGG publishing anonymous unsignedadvertisements in the newspaper. Then there is one calledPAIN and it is beginning to tell you in a subliminal way whatthe Opposition is about, that they are in pain and that theyare gagged. The images – gagg and pain – that they areprojecting are not positive, purposeful images. Now we havethis dastardly act of a serious political party publishing astatement, making realistic and strong opposition to thestatement, and finding itself in a position where it isembarrassed into having to dissociate itself with its ownhandywork.

Sir, we will not it this term be able to expect more fromthe Democratic Labour Party. The Leader of the Oppositionhas carried out a process of political cleansing. He hascleansed the party of persons of intellect. He has cleansedthe party of any person who can mount a serious challengeto him. He has cleansed the party of persons who could callupon him to exercise restraints and he would now reinforcehis position in the party, make it an institutional plaything toperpetuate his form of perverse politics with the politics ofno redemption, the politics of no purpose, the politics ofnegativism, division, hate and envy.

Sir, the thing about the Leader of the Opposition is thatthe people who know him the best are the people who aremost revolted by him. You see it, Sir, in his political careerin St. John. It is the most astounding political record in thehistory of the Caribbean. He came to public life with amajority. His votes were 4 108 in 1987. It dropped to 3 564in 1991, to 3 405 in 1994 and to 2 900 in 1999. He hasmanaged to convert a 3 564 majority when he first came intopolitics to a majority of only 1 369.

It is a remarkable political statement, that he hastaken the constituency of St. John, started with amajority of 3 564, one of the largest majorities in thehistory of Barbados and by the style of his politics hasreduced it to a majority of only 1 369. The same thingthat he has done to Errol Barrow’s constituency he is nowdoing to Errol Barrow’s party by a style of politics thatrevolts those who know him best.

December 5, 2000 40

Sir, it would be unparliamentary for to me say that hereflects all the congenital effects of a recidivist buteverything is pointing in that direction.

Sir, what we have before us today to debate upon ismerely a kind of political postering by the DemocraticLabour Party of which we expect more and more. Week byweek, month by month, new political issues will be invented.As night follows day, imaginary groups will be invented topromote imaginary causes. As night follows day, Mr. DeputySpeaker, you are going to have these anonymous statementsflourish across the land of this country purporting to becritical of the Government. All I would beg the BarbadosLabour Party to do in its entirety, is to keep focused on themandate that we were elected to discharge.

Asides.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: There is a level of decencystill residing in the Honourable Member for St. Lucy. Sir, heis not a goon and I will dissociate him from that generalstricture but he knows that the others are goons.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir,on a point of order. I have no goons or wild boys in myparty, Sir.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it isvery sad that we have to come today and deal with anadministrative slip which we are anxious to correct as soonas it was discovered but to have to be part of this very sordidsituation where improper motives are being attached tolegitimate investments by Barbadians acting in their interestand in the interest of the country. I do not have to defend thePort St. Charles people, Sir, but I think it is very wrong tohave aspersions cast about them that they were involved inillegal acts.5.40 p.m.

That, Sir, is not worthy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it isvery wrong to have those aspersions cast that the people atPort St. Charles have been involved in things intended to,and which have succeeded in doing, damage to this country.

The Leader of Government Business in the House, andAttorney General would have already gone through the listof environmental conditions that were attached and may Isay, Sir, that the investors at Port St. Charles have beenassiduous in carrying out all aspects of the implementationof the project in strict compliance with both the physical, aswell as the environmental conditions that have been used toconstrain that investment.

I also want to say, on their behalf, that they led the wayin environmental protection in St. Peter, that the governmentis now following, to the benefit of the people in St. Peter.

One of the environmental conditions imposed was thatthey should try to extract water in up land to prevent floodingin the low lands of my constituency. They led the way inpioneering new techniques of dredging control and drainageand the government has now come and replicated that bybuilding a dam in St. Peter to the point, where the last veryheavy rains in Barbados, the instance of flooding in St. Peter,would not have been severe as it would have been in thepast.

The people at Port St. Charles are Barbadians who havemade a substantial investment to create an asset that willredound to this country’s advantage for many years to come.

Their public-spiritedness is also reflective in the factthat come December 20th, we will be opening a new lawenforcement agency at Port St. Charles, built by the investorsat their expense that would not only enable us to ensureintegrity in the operations at Port St. Charles, but I dobelieve, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow us to strengthenour fight against illegal drugs in the northern part of thenation. I thank them for their public-spiritedness.

There has been nobody who has been as hard on theinvestors in requiring them to comply with everyconditionality than the Member of Parliament for St. Peter.I have been conscious, from the outset, that this was a projectthat some people wanted to shroud in controversy. On everyoccasion in which anything major had taken place in thiscountry, there has been strictures by persons who shouldhave known better.

I remember the days when, from the ranks of theDemocratic Labour Party, the highways that Tom Adamsconceived that now, unfortunately, carry Errol Barrow’sname, was castigated by the claim that Tom Adams was onlybuilding it to be able to facilitate the small plane owners, hiscomrades, who were going to use the highway to bring illegaldrugs into the country.

We remember, Sir, the furore over that highway and Iwould expect nothing else from the Democratic Labour Partybecause they have that as part of their more recent memory.The Leader of the Opposition, Sir, has obviously fled fromthis debate, and it is well that he should have, because had hebeen here, I would have had to use the words of AlexanderPope about him:

“Yet, let me flap this bug with gilded wings,This painted child of dirt that stinks, and stings.”

I am obliged to you, Sir.

41 December 5, 2000

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr Deputy Speaker, it hasall been said today. I, once in discussion with a formerAttorney General of Jamaica, Mr. David Core, learnt fromhim that once you had made a point to the court you shouldnot persist because repetition, in some tribunals, wasoffensive.

When I opened this debate today, I took time and painsto trace the history of everything connected with thedevelopment and still the Leader of the Opposition wouldwish me to repeat what I said today. I will not. I just want tomake one point. He gave the impression, left it deliberatelyfor the Press to carry, that the government was doingsomething special and unique for a corporate citizen. I wishto write into the records of the House of Assembly, that inl965 – you would not find these Laws in the Blue volume,but I have the Annual Volume of l966.

In l965, for the benefit of Peter Morgan, who is astrong supporter of the Democratic Labour Party, and oncewas a minister of...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: What P.M. what? But hewrites under that column. By Act, No. 23 of l965, theDemocratic Labour Party government at the time, brought aseparate piece of legislation, a separate Act of Parliament.He said that we should not have brought the original Port St.Charles Act. They brought a separate legislation to authorisethe St. Lawrence Hotel Company Limited to construct agroyne, with or without a seawall, connected to, or attachedthereto, to happen from 3rd June, l965.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: On point of Order, Sir, theHonourable Attorney General is obviously misleading theHouse.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: I told this House earliertoday, if there is one thing that I have learnt from Sir LloydErskine Sandiford, was the power of counterpunching. I holdsomething up my sleeves...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Whereas, the St. LawrenceHotel Company Limited has presented a petition to thelegislature, Mr. Peter Morgan got this House of Assembly,in l965 to do something for him ...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: He was the owner and itburnt down too...

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: “Whereas, the St. LawrenceHotel Company has presented a petition to this Islandpraying that they may authorise to build, establish ormaintain in the sea, the property of the company known asthe St. Lawrence Hotel, situated St. Lawrence Gap, in theParish of Christ Church, in this Island...” That hotel was thenowned by Mr. Peter Morgan and it was burnt down.5.50 p.m.

I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: I beg to second that, Sir.

The question was put and resolved in the affirmativewithout division.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: I beg to move that yourHonour do now leave the Chair and the House go intoCommittee on this Bill but in doing so, I have to announcethat the Chairman of Committees had to attend a funeral, Sir,and in his absence I ask that the Honourable Member for St.Michael South Central assume the Chair of Committees.

Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR: I beg to second that, Sir.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If that be the will of theHouse, so let it be.

On the motion of Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS, secondedby Rt. Hon. O. S. ARTHUR the House resolved itself inCommittee, Mr. DAVID GILL in the Chair.

COMMITTEE

Mr. CHAIRMAN: This Honourable House is now inCommittee.

Clauses 1 and 2 were called and passed.

On the motion of Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS, secondedby Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE, Mr. CHAIRMAN reported toHis Honour Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, the passing of one Billin Committee and Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER resumed theChair and reported accordingly.

On the separate motions of Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS,seconded by Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE, the Bill was read athird time and passed and cited as the Port St. Charles(Validation) Act, 2000.

ORDER NO. 6 – THE TENANTRIES FREEHOLDPURCHASE (AMENDMENT)

BILL, 2000

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: As Leader of the House,Sir, I wanted the House’s indulgence to explain that we donot propose to finish this debate on the Tenantries Bill today

December 5, 2000 42

but I wish the House to be aware that last week we tabledan amended Bill. As a result of one or two concernswhich Members had when the Bill was first debated, we tookthe opportunity in the interval to make a couple ofamendments. I wish formerly to withdraw the Bill whichwas tabled on 7th November and substitute therefore the Billwhich was laid in here on 28th November, Sir, so that I wishthe debate to proceed on the amended Bill tabled on 28thNovember, Sir.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If that be the will of theHouse, so let it be.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thereis no doubt that the Opposition will support the possibility ofpeople owning land but one must recognise that we must alsobe fair in making sure that in order for one to own a piece ofland, we do not deprive someone else in return.

If it is the policy of the Government to take a piece ofland from someone else to give another person that is theirpolicy but we think as an Opposition that we must also havethe right to propose what we think is fear and justifiable tothe landlord.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is no doubt that if thisamendment is allowed to be passed as it stands that thisamendment will end up helping one person and depriving alandlord of his rights and that is why I feel that we must finda fair way to solve this particular problem.

I am suggesting, as I have been saying all the time thatthe Government must understand it is their duty to providethe land for the people who want to buy land and not for thelandlord to provide the land. If the Government thinks thatit is not fair for somebody who has been living on land for 20years to remove their homes and go somewhere else, I mightsupport them on that, providing they are prepared to enterinto an arrangement with the landlord to give an alternativepiece of land somewhere else and providing that piece ofland is not worse off than the piece they had previously.

We must understand that the major debate and thebiggest crisis in Barbados now, is about land ownership andif we are going to continue to take from the left hand to givethe right hand and deprive the body of one hand, we aregoing to create a social problem in Barbados that we will notbe able to solve down the road.

I am telling you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that already thisparticular Act has caused a lot pain and problems for people.It has even gone to the stage where people have sought waysto make sure they protected their interest from losing theirland.

I am not prepared to say what they have done but I haveheard of many cases, Sir, where people were deprived of the

right to live on the piece of land because, instead of havingto look for a piece of land, they had also to look for a house.

I am saying, as I have said on many occasions, theGovernment needs to buy land. The Government also needsto have a relationship with MTW or Public Works, whateveryou want to call them, to put in the necessary amenities andI have been telling this Government about this policy nowfor six years. What they need to do, buy the land, put in theamenities and sell that land back at the cost of the land.6.00 p.m.

For the simple reason, Sir, when a road is constructedin an area where you have houses already, you do not askthose people to pay for the road, the lights or water. If weare going to empower our people, the Government must havean enlightening policy and do things like that.

Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a manmight have a piece of land, he does not own a house, he isrenting somewhere and because somebody is renting his landfor 20 years that person can look at him and tell him he isgoing to acquire his land. That person is not going to ask theperson to buy any more you know. He is telling that person,look, I want that piece of land and there is nothing that thelandlord can do about it. I cannot see how this Parliamentcan see something like this as being fair.

I agree that the tenants should have a right to a piece ofland and I agree that in some cases you cannot move thembecause of their housing conditions. But on the same hand,if you are going to pass a law like that you must also protectthe interest of the landlord otherwise, we are going to havea situation in Barbados where they are trying to give peopleland but they will be taking away some person’s land to giveto another person. Can that be fair, Mr. Deputy Speaker?There is no way that can be fair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Therefore, I am saying that the Government has to stopremoving the problem about land ownership from off theirback and putting it on poor people because this is exactlywhat they are doing. They are depriving poor people fromland ownership and at the same time they are inviting peoplefrom outside to come and get land in this country.

Hon. G. A. CLARKE: On a point of order. TheHonourable Member is misleading the House because theBill speaks to persons living on lots for 20 years or more byFebruary 1, 1990.

Asides.

Hon. G. A. CLARKE: No! No! No! There is adifference. If you look at the Bill, you will see that theperson has to be living on the land at February 1, 1990.There is a difference because a person could be living on thelot for 20 years by 2000 but it states 20 years by 1990.

43 December 5, 2000

Furthermore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, under theamendment to the Act, under the Democratic Labour Party,those persons who were living on lands for 20 years or more,the landlord could not move them. All we are saying here isthat they cannot be moved but they have the right to purchasethe land. That is what we are saying.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thatcan never be a point of order, for the simple reason that Inever identified a date or a period of time, so I cannotunderstand what the Honourable Member is getting up foralready.

The truth is that the Honourable Member needs to tellthis House how he is going to solve the problem of thelandlord because he is addressing the problem of the tenantwithout recognising that the landlord has a right too. Howare you going to take the one spot a landlord has from himand give it to somebody else and call that justifiable? Icannot see how any Member of Parliament could vote forthis unless it is amended to make sure that the landlord is notdeprived of his piece of land and that the commitment mustgo on the backs of the Government.

The Government is bragging about the amount of landand the number of lots they have and at the same time isseeking to deprive a landlord of one single lot and they aretalking about empowering people. How can you empowerone man and deprive another man at the same time? This isexactly what the Honourable Member for St. George Northhas brought to this House.

I am telling Honourable Members on the Governmentside whether they are on the Backbench or on the Frontbenchthat they need to speak out against things like these becausethis is an issue which will not rest in here alone. I will travelall across Barbados and put this case on behalf of thelandlords and I will put the case for the tenant also becausethe commitment must be the commitment from Governmentand not the landlord. The landlord owes nobody anythingbut the Government owes it to the people in Barbados toprovide a house lot for them.

I can understand the argument with the plantationtenantries because the plantations can afford to give up thatsmall parcel of land but I cannot understand the argumentwhen they are going to bring a Bill in the year 2000 whenland is becoming a scare resource in this country and they aregoing to tell me that they are going to deprive a man fromhaving a right to own a piece of land because they want tosatisfy the interest of another person.

Am I to believe that we are now in Barbados where wehave two types of Barbadians, one who have a right to haveand the other who has a right to give up without his consent?This is not fair. I cannot see how any Member of Parliamentcould support this particular measure. That is why I amcalling on the Backbench to use their conscience because ifthey do not use it, I will use my tongue as a weapon to show

Barbadians that they are not deserving to be back in herebecause it is not fair. I am not saying that the tenants shouldnot get a piece of land. I have argued that for six years andI have pointed out to the Government how they can do it.

There was a situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in St.Thomas when Sandy Lane bought the land from BennettsPlantation, over 52 acres of land was available to theGovernment to the east of Highway 2A, and I told theGovernment, and you can find it in Hansard, that they shouldacquire that land, put in the roads and the necessaryamenities and sell it back to the Barbadian public at areasonable price. Nobody can fault Government for that, Sir.

I have said on many occasions that Government is inthe business of building roads and they are in the business ofproviding lights, water and telephone. There is nothingwrong going to fertile land and doing likewise. If they reallywant to empower their people, that is the type of policy toadopt.

If the Barbados Labour Party Government wants tohave a policy where they are going to take from a poor manto give to another poor man, I have a problem with that. Icannot support that and I cannot see how they can bringsomething like this before this House and ask me to supportit because it cannot be justifiable because I know of asituation where a man ...

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: I hope you take your ownlessons. ...living in his house, had one acre of land in St.James, he had three children and because of the kindness ofhis heart.... Mr. Deputy Speaker, before I continue with thispoint, I want people to understand one thing in here. Mostof the landlords who rent people land, rent them not becauseof the money they get because if you only know how muchmoney they received on a yearly basis for renting land,nobody would rent land.

The truth is landlords rent that land out of the kindnessof their hearts and that is the regrettable thing becausesometimes somebody buys a house from someone and cannotget anywhere to put it, they come and beg the landlord to restthe house on his land for a while. The landlord who has aheart gives in and allows the person to rest the house on hisland.

Now, they are telling me that 20 years before 1980when that was the habit of people to do those things that thatperson will now be deprived of being kind to another person.Is that fair, Sir? It cannot be fair and the Government mustunderstand that they have a responsibility to the people andnot the landlord. What is happening is that the Governmentseems only to have a responsibility, by what I am seeing infront of me, to large investors but not to the people whowould have developed Barbados.6.10 p.m.

December 5, 2000 44

I am calling on the Honourable Member for St. MichaelEast who should understand an issue like this to getinvolved in this debate and throw some light on thisparticular issue. I feel that this is an issue that he shouldunderstand because he knows a lot of people who because ofthe kindness of their hearts allowed people to put up housesin the sixties, the forties and the fifties. Those are the peopleI am talking about. Most of those people, Mr. DeputySpeaker, would have worked in the same fields and becauseof the sweat of their brows they were able to get a piece ofland so that they could pass on to their dependants.

Do you think it is fair to those old people now to havea situation where they worked hard to achieve something inBarbados and now have to give it up because theGovernment wants their lands for their purposes and at thesame time they want to deprive those people of that right tohave that piece of land? Is that fair?

Sir, Government will have to be about fairness. As Isaid, I had no problem when the plantations were asked togive up some land to the people who worked on theplantations but some of these people do not even know thepeople they are renting from and these people only allowedthem a spot on their land because they felt for them.

Am I to believe that we are creating a society where weare saying to people now that when you are kind to me thatyou must be punished for being kind? That is exactly what ishappening. This Government is now punishing people forbeing kind and that cannot be fair. What will happen, Mr.Deputy Speaker, is that people will feel that wheneversomeone buys a house and they have land they will not rentto a soul because they will feel that politicians willsomewhere down the road come back to Parliament and finda way to pass their land onto the tenants. That is a seriouscharge. We cannot divide communities.

I am telling you, Sir, when this is passed what wewould have done in this Parliament is to divide communitiesinstead of bringing them together. This is about division.This is about creating strife among the masses and that is notfair. What we need is a policy where we can bring the massestogether and cause them to unite.

I now understand, Sir, why the Honourable Member forSt. George North when I asked him not to build houses andallow people to own their own lots he did not accept thatpolicy because the Government of the day does not want tosee communities coming together but they want to see thedivide and rule policy continue.

That policy cannot help Barbados and we as aParliament must do something. I hope that the Speaker willbe in his Chair, and you have a right to speak on this

particular measure because I cannot see a politician like you,Sir, supporting a measure like this. I cannot see politicianssupporting this. I cannot see the Honourable Member forChrist Church West Central get up and support a measurelike this, nor can I see the Honourable Member for St.Michael West supporting this because this runs against theBible because Jesus Christ would never have allowed this tohappen in his day.

Aside.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: To say that Jesus Christliked justice is blaspheming. That is why I know that theLord will look after the Honourable Member for St. MichaelSouth because he sees no good in the Lord. Mr. DeputySpeaker, examples like that must be made because JesusChrist came to this world to uplift the underprivileged andeverybody else. This must be recognised in this Parliament.It is not fair to divide the gentiles among themselves but it isgood to bring the gentiles together as one unit.

Sir, we must understand that this Parliament cannot beseen as a Parliament to divide the masses but must be seen asa Parliament to bring the masses together. What we need atthis time Sir, is not to keep the land ownership among themasses at the same amount but have policies to expand theland ownership of the masses. That is why I feel that thesuggestion that I made to this Government is the right one.If they only follow that suggestion what will happen is thatwe will have a larger portion of land available to the masses.

If you take an acre and shift it from one hand to theother it is still an acre but if you take an acre and you add 52acres to it you have 53 acres and that is the problem with theGovernment. They cannot understand the importance ofexpanding the land base of the masses. They feel that theland base of the masses should remain constant and the onlything that should change is the ownership. The DemocraticLabour Party must be a party where we oversee the landownership of the masses increasing and the ownership notjust changing hands. What is happening on the Other Side,Sir, just today in this Parliament we were told that we shouldnot stop foreign investment. My question to you, Sir, whenwe encourage foreign investment and they come in and buyplantations at the rate they are buying, what will happen?They will deplete the amount of land available to the massesin this country and at the same time we are saying that weshould limit the ownership of land to the masses.

How, on one hand, can you be a Government that callsitself progressive inviting people that do not know anythingabout Barbados to come and own all the land in Barbadosbut you are going to tell the masses that even though yourfamilies are expanding you can only live on a limited acreageof land? Can that be a fair policy?

45 December 5, 2000

Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is no way I can support thisBill unless there is an amendment to it and the amendment isthat the Government must be prepared to offer the landlordan alternative piece of land. I will not support any Bill thattells me that the landlord must sell the tenant the land andjust hold cash. Let me tell you something, the most preciousresource in Barbados now is owning a piece of this rock. Letme tell you something, go to St. Lucy and try messing withanybody’s land and you will see what happens to you. Donot even touch their landmarks because you might miss ahand and a toe. This is how seriously people see land.

Aside.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: It seems to me that some ofyour comrades do not understand that the people ofBarbados, especially in St. Lucy, understand the meaning ofownership of land. This is a serious matter now. You mighthave been able to get away with this 20 years ago butbecause of the enlightening, educational processes of theDemocratic Labour Party, the offspring of the people whoworked in the fields would not allow you to get away withthis type of policy anymore.

You have educated the grandchildren of the peoplewho worked in the fields and do you expect theseenlightened people to allow you to rush something like thisthrough Parliament? I am saying that any self-serving soulworking in Barbados who picks up this Bill will recognisethat this cannot be in the interest of the masses and that theywill have to write against things like this. What you aresaying is that you have a grandfather who allows a grandsonto have a piece of land to put a house. Let’s say he did thatin 1959. The grandson now can buy piece. He owns land allover the world but he still has a right, because he was livingon the land for 20 years before 1980, to write the grandfatherand tell the grandfather that he wants that piece of land. Thatsame grandson could have owned plantations somewhereelse or he could have had the right to own land and refused.Do you think that it is fair for the grandson to tell thegrandfather that he has to sell them that piece of land whenthe grandfather might have had it for someone less fortunate?

I am saying to the Government of Barbados today ifyou feel a tenant deserves a piece of land I have no problem,I feel so too. I would like to see all poor people with land butfind the alternative land so that when you tell a landlord thathe has to sell his land that you can give him an alternativepiece of land.

Sir, I am saying to you that the landlord has a right tohave a piece of land too.6.20 p.m.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Let me explain to youbecause I feel that now you are in your new mood and if youhear it well that you will support it.

Asides.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: He is very much ‘mass-based’ now and when I get him in that mood I have to holdhim.

Sir, the Act as it stands will deprive a man who has onespot of land. Do not fool yourself, somebody might have apiece of land which they are renting to someone. They couldhave been renting it 20 years before 1980 and might be livingin a rented house somewhere else but the tenant can nowwrite the landlord and say that he wants to buy the land. Ihave no problem with that. I am saying that the obligation ison the Government to make sure that the landlord is offeredan alternative piece of land because it is the Governmentwho wants the landlord to give up the land. I do not believein this policy because the Minister of Housing believes thatonce he is offered money, that is the important thing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am telling you that money is notas important as a piece of land in Barbados today. If we donot watch ourselves, we are going to create civil strife in thiscountry. I have heard about too many fires in Barbados andwhen people question the origins of the fires, they looksuspicious.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am saying that it is not fair, thatit is not the way that the masses of people should have to livewhere they feel that to get what is deserving that they haveto do what is not right.

It is not fair, the Government has a solution and theyshould follow it. Buy the land and have a land bank forthose landlords who are affected. It is a simple solution butyou are coming to Parliament, telling the landlord to give uphis right and you will write a cheque for him as if only theCabinet can appreciate the value of land. How insulting canthe Cabinet of Barbados be? No one in the Cabinet would beprepared to give up their land to somebody else so why areyou asking poor people to give up their land for somebodyelse? Government has an obligation to buy alternative landto make sure that nobody is deprived of that sacred right. Ifeel that owning land in Barbados now is a sacred right.

Sir, all day I have been hearing about investment andabout foreigners having a right to come to Barbados andinvest and own land but yet we cannot see that our peoplehave the right to own some of the same land. Howcontradictory we can be as a Parliament? People who do notknow of the building of Barbados have a right but because alandlord is poor and the only thing he owns is a piece ofland, that is not important. Sir, it cannot be seen in thatlight.

I am calling on this Parliament and on the backbenchersespecially to revolt against this unless an amendment ismade. I promise the backbench one thing, that I will treatthem the same way that I will treat the frontbench onthis particular matter. If they do not vote on this or make the

December 5, 2000 46

necessary amendment, I will have to go out there and tell theconstituents that they have the right to tell the Governmentthat everybody is entitled to a piece of land and that theyshould have a land bank to compensate the landlord.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a fair man. I feel that it isunfair to ask a tenant to remove his house which is in a poorcondition. I understand the importance of leaving that houseintact but at the same time you cannot only look at the tenant,you must also worry about the landlord.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am saying that since thelandlord does not have a house on the land that it is easier foryou to offer the landlord a piece of land somewhere else. Iconsider that to be fair providing that the piece of land is ofthe same value or higher. I have no problem with that butdo not take from the grandfather to give the grandchild whenthe grandfather needs the piece of land too.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: Mr. Deputy Speaker,unfortunately, the speech of the previous Member who spokeon this amendment leaves me very confused. The mistakeis that he has jumped into the pool at the deep end and findsit extremely difficult to follow a proper and logical path inorder to arrive at a sensible conclusion.

Sir, to understand the progressive nature of theamendment to the principal legislation of the 1990s, one hasto examine the whole chronological evolution of the historyof land that begins as far back as the 19th century as a pointof reference. When the Honourable Member spoke itreminded me of the robust argument of the middle class ofthe 19th century who occupied some of the noble corridorsof Government like Conrad Reeves and Lady Carter who putforward a strong argument for the landlords of the day andthe land-owing class of the time.

I have always attributed a sense of philosophicalthought to the Honourable Member for St. Lucy.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: I believe that he was stillsearching to find a grounding somewhere. Every time theHonourable Member for St. Lucy comes to this Parliamenthe speaks about the interests of the masses but I could notbelieve today, to hear him consistently, in almost every linetalking about the landlords.

Sir, the white plantocracy who came here had all theland and in order for the landless in this society to get land,in order to transfer title of land from one person to another,there is a necessity for someone to give up some of what theyhave. The Honourable Member’s logic seems to suggestthat there is something magical about the TenantriesFreehold Purchase Act.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Speaker, Sir, on a pointof order. The Honourable Member is misleading the House.Sir, all I said was that if you are going to take land from apoor person to give a poor person that it is the Government’sobligation to make sure that the landlord has an alternativepiece of land. I thought that a gentleman who spends mostof his time trying to uplift the masses would have been ableto connect with that statement. I said that when the land istaken from the plantations, I support that, because they canafford to lose the land. Now, I am shocked that someonewhom I always thought was grounded on the mass basis isnow sounding like a conservative.6.30 p.m.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: It is simple under the lastamendment, which can be considered the principal Act, upto l990.

If, for 20 years, up to February l, l990 and persons wereliving on the land, those persons who were living therebefore this Amendment had a right, which is tantamount toa life tenancy. They could stay on the land as long as theyhonoured the payment of the rent. If they did not pay therent, they would be considered a squatter and be subjected toeviction. They had no right to purchase the property as aconsequence of the l990 Amendment. They could havestayed on that land until the end of time, without the landlordhaving the right to evict them from the land.

All that this 1990 Amendment seeks to do now, is togive them a right to purchase the property from the land-lord...

Aside.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: The landlord still would nothave use of the land as long as that person is alive. Youcannot understand that? It is simple. The problem with youis that you have not gone through the provisions in theAmendment, or even tried to understand what were theinconsistencies and contradictions in the variousAmendments over time; the Amendment of l980, and then,the Amendment of l990.

You see, the problem with you Honourable Memberson the Other Side, is that you have a perception of personswhich you should have of yourselves. You believe thateverybody who comes in here for the first time is a neophytein relation to understanding these matters. Because they aretoo complexed for you, you think that they are toocomplexed for me.

When I speak of a fee, simple, absolute in possession,you believe that somebody told it to me. You do have thatproblem. When I talk to you about a good title, you believethat somebody told it to me. All that I am seeking to do, isto bring you back on track and rather than saying onething about the masses for a number of months or years, you

47 December 5, 2000

suddenly then seek to protect party interest and shift yourdefence to the defence of the landlord, withoutunderstanding one of the objectives behind the Amendment.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: The Honourable Member ismisleading the House by giving the House the impressionthat I am trying to play-off the landlord versus the tenant.That is not true. I have said, Sir, that both of them haverights and that instead of the landlord being played-offagainst the tenant, that the government must be the thirdparty and provide the landlord with an alternative piece ofland. That is all that I have said. I am shocked that this iscausing a problem for the Honourable Member for St.Michael East.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: That is why, as I said it soundedlike an advocate of the l9th Century, very much like ConradReeves and Lady Carter.

I want to make this point, because these were the samepeople who were opposed to the transfer of titles from thewhite planter-class to the landless proletariat. It was alrightif the land was transferred to the black middle-class, but theyfelt that land was not to be transferred to ordinary working-class people.

This objective here is that persons living on smallhouse-spots of less than 5,000 square feet are people fromthe proletariat. You deduce that from logic, you do not haveto state it. It is addressing a situation where the very small atthe lowest end of the social strata of the society will benefitfrom the Amendment. What we are saying is that there are somany landless old people in Barbados and we are seeking toput them in a position of good title.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: The reason why I have explainedto you that these difficulties do exist is that if you look backat the whole history of the struggle for property, you will seethat whenever attempts were made there were always voiceslike his. Whenever attempts were made to transfer title to theordinary masses, there were all types of restrictions placed inthe way of the transfer of that title.

It has happened as a consequence of the investment ofthe silver men who came back from Panama in the l920's andhad invested their money in friendly societies and theplantation class of the day, who controlled the legislature,ensured that restrictions were put in place so only one acreof land could have been purchased by the same friendlysocieties.

This trouble is something that has been consistent. Ithas happened before in a different form when they used anAct which ought to have been positive. They used the HealthAct of the l9th century to identify lands in places likeCarrington’s Village, at the end of the l890's as being

properties unsuitable for human habitation. They used theAct which ought to have been positive and that is all we havewitnessed throughout the history; a constant struggle and thatis why I am trying to explain to you in order for you tounderstand. You must understand the chronologicalevolution of the historiography of properties in Barbados.That is the point I was trying to make to you and you need tounderstand that. The Masters and Servants Act is anotherAct which was put in place to keep black people in povertywith regard to land. They had to live on the “rab” land ofplantations and if they wanted to go to work on anotherplantation, they had to put the little chattel house on theirback and move.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: The Honourable Member ismisleading the House again, Sir, because the majority ofthese land lots are tilled and to give the impression, Sir, thatthe land that we speak of is quite different from the “rab”land of the plantation, is to mislead this House and not tohave an understanding of this life in Barbados.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: Sir, our philosophy is veryclear. There was no altruistic effort in the l9th Century toenfranchise black people. The intention was to dis-enfranchise them. The comparative analysis of the l9th,20th and 2lst Century is that we seek to put in place a moreegalitarian, a more altruistic approach to the transfer of thattitle to ordinary working-class people.

It is clear that the phenomenon of land is tantamount topersistent poverty and if we have a programme where we aretalking about the eradication of poverty, then we must seekto empower the landless in society who worked for centuriesto build this nation. When you do not have any land, in thiscountry, you are perceived as a subordinate, an inferior; youhave no power. Land is power.6.40 p.m.

In the 1950s as a consequence of the adult franchise,you had to be in possession, prior to that, of property or bornwhite, in order to exercise the right to vote. Land has alwaysbeen powerful and that is what we are talking about.

You know how it is, I do not know if you knowbecause you are probably part of the middle-class, land-owning type in Barbados and that is where your problemexists. But you know how it is to be at home and face theharassment of the landlord that you now seek to defend? Doyou know the type of subservience that a tenant has to put upwith when a landlord comes a morning for rent and becauseyou are unemployed temporarily, the landlord shows no kindof social conscience whatsoever and the eviction notice thatis given sometimes is in obscene language? Do youunderstand that?

Do you know how it is when the Urban DevelopmentCommission which has been seeking to transform thesepeople’s lives, go to a tenant and tells the tenant that ‘we are

December 5, 2000 48

willing to replace this home and put contemporary conditionsin place with a toilet and bath’. And the landlord who hasbeen renting that person that property for over 30 years,simply because they hear that the State is going to improvethe quality of life of that person, refuses to sign and allowthat person to put a water toilet, so to speak, on the back ofa chattel house, in order to improve the condition of life.Those are everyday experiences.

The legislation you see today is a consequence of theexperiences that we are having in bringing about thetransformation from poverty to a higher standard of life.These legal norms emerge as a consequence of the socialnorms in this country today. He has to understand that andthat is what is happening. There is a need for us to bring therequired legislation in place to address and redress thoseconditions within the society. This is easy to understand.This is nothing complex.

I cannot understand how you could go down the line,according to Mark, about the landlord’s rights will be takenaway. The word, ‘rights’ is relative in these circumstancesbecause rights at some point, when the British Crown camehere and claimed all the land, some kind of rights, somebodyeven had permanent rights in the circumstances. Now, whenthe British came here, they did not purchase the land, theyclaimed the land and all over this country was divided up inplantations and they became the owners of the land. Sir, hadnot for the changes of legislation over the last few years,very few of us would be owners of land.

Sir, at the end of the 19th century, between 1880 and1890, a man by the name of C. H. Greenidge purchased theland in the Ivy with the intentions of subdividing the Ivy in1890. His intention was to create a middle-class enclave, notfor the masses of the people. If you look at the houses in theearly part of Ivy, you will see middle-class housing. Therewere very few people, in the Legislature fighting to gethousing and better conditions for the broad masses of people.He has to understand that.

The health legislation which I spoke about, they weretalking of Conrad Reeves, if you read the history. Go backand read Woodville Marshall and you will see what thisconsistent struggle has always been all about. So there isprovision in this legislation which can be very helpful to theimprovement of the standard of life for working-class peoplethat are landless in the urban communities especially.

Although we already have provisions in place for landon the plantation tenantries to be purchased at $0.10 persquare foot, what will happen in all of these amendments isthat the landlord will be compensated. As long as the lot isless than 5 000 square feet, the State is prepared to pay thebalance over the $2.50 per square foot which the tenant willpay. The State will pay the additional sum of money as a

form of compensation for the loss of real property which thelandlord will have to give up.

Sir, we will look at the market value of the property.The tenant will pay $2.50 for the property and the State willpay the remainder. If the land costs $6.00 per square foot,the tenant will pay $2.50 and the State will pay $3.50. Thereis a comprehensive way of arriving at that because what younormally do in the process is to indicate your interest as atenant in the purchase of the land by forwarding a Form I tothe Ministry of Housing and Lands showing your intentionsto purchase that land.

I think if there is a delay for an unreasonable period,then you forward the Form II and indicate your interest.Then the Ministry of Housing and Lands will take adecision in deciding how that land should be disbursed of.Sir, what is so complex about that.

What it is in the legislation that makes you believe thatthe landlord will be disenfranchised – that his land will betaken away from him and that there will be a loss insuccession rights to the offspring of the landlord? It has tohappen that way and all that you have to do is if you get$6.00 or $7.00 per square foot for the land, go and purchaseland somewhere else for your offspring.

Sir, we must extend the democracy in Barbados to thepoint where the landless must come in possession ofproperty. If you know the struggles of lands throughout theworld where a large mass at the bottom has been landless,there have been consistent conflict and wars. Go and look atthe struggles of Guinea-Bissau with Amilcar Cabral, thestruggles of the African people against the Portugese, goand look at the struggles in Kenya with Jomo Kenyatta andKiribati against the British. Go and study those strugglesand you will see the conflict came as a consequence of thebroad masses of people remaining landless all the time.

There are many other examples where land has beencentral to the social conflicts that exist withing a society.Whether you are conscious of it or not, when you have alandless population, you are talking about instability.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: The problem which you haveis that you do not understand progressive, socialengineering.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: I do not give credit easily.

Sir, this piece of legislation is an attempt, and that iswhy I label it ‘egalitarianism’, to expand a democracy to awider percentage of the population.

49 December 5, 2000

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: We seek to enfranchise the poorin these circumstances.

Although you are on the Other Side, I look forward toseeing you improving in one way because it is a greatopportunity for you in the future and if you would listen andlearn, even from those whom you believe are notknowledgeable enough to enlighten you, I believe that youwould go a long way.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: I know for sure, out of thislegislation that the people of St. Michael East will beextremely grateful.

I have a tenantry in Martinique Road. It is calledTudor’s Land, some call it Sealy’s Land. It has over 46tenants on the parcel of land in Martinique Tenantry whowill rejoice at the provisions that are in this amendment.Most of them have no title to the property but as aconsequence of this amendment they will be entitled verysoon to good tidings.6.50 p.m.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: They will have a document, apiece of real property in their hand, just like you, when theywant to go to the bank to borrow money they can use it assecurity. Provisions are already in place. I am sure that therecord of the Urban Development Commission (UDC) willclearly indicate that the people of Martinique Road, who areliving on those tenantries will soon be in possession of thosetitles.

I also have a piece of land in Barkers Tenantry Road inan area called Hollywood that has on 23 units and is ownedby a landlord from St. George who wants to sell poor peoplethe land at $20 per square foot as though the land is on theWest Coast and he has been changing from one Attorney tothe next.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: I know that my constituentswould be extremely happy because they now have access tothe Urban Development Commission and the NationalHousing Corporation where they can go and get a loan tocover the cost of purchasing those properties.

I also know of single tenants in my constituency whofor quite a long time would like to improve the structure oftheir homes but the landlord refused to even give them a note

saying he has granted them permission to refurbish orimprove the house. They do not even have a toilet and bath,sometimes not even a proper pit toilet and they now have toventure 70 yards from the little unit...

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: Do you understand thoseconditions? Do you understand the importance of thisamendment? Those single tenants can now, without havingto depend on the landlord holding them in a state ofsubjection, purchase the property and make all the necessaryimprovements that are required.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: You do not want them topurchase the property. You are saying that it isdisenfranchising the landlord. That is what you are saying.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on apoint of order, Sir. The Honourable Member is misleadingthe House by giving the impression that I do not want thetenants to have the land. I have said on more than oneoccasion during the debate that I agree with the tenantshaving the right to purchase the land, but that the landlordmust also be given the right to get a piece of land back fromthe Government. That is all I am saying, as simple as that.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not anorgan system, that we take land from a man and pay back theman piece of land. What they are given is money. Money isa medium of exchange. They are paid in liquid cash, if youwant to put it that way, for the actual land. They can take thatmoney and decide whether they want to purchase landsomewhere else or not. They have an option of doingwhatever they like with the money they receive for thepurchase of the land. The option is there for them.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: But they can purchase land ifthey want to because they are compensated at the market-value of the land.

Asides.

Mr. T. A. PRESCOD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope thatdespite the reluctance in trying to understand the pointswhich I was making that Honourable Members who listen tome, including the Honourable Member for St. Lucy, wouldbe much clearer on the objective of the amendment of thisTenantries Freehold Purchase Act and understand that all weare seeking to do is to redress certain imbalances in thesociety and to extend the democracy so we can include the

December 5, 2000 50

ordinary working-class landless people in the share of thewealth of this nation.

I thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I amproposing that we could probably take another two to threespeakers on this matter and then adjourn the House later on.We would not be able to do the Post Office (Amendment)Bill tonight but I would wish to do it next Tuesday. There isevery likelihood that we will meet next Tuesday and possiblynext Friday because we have a lot of business still on theOrder Paper. Government is just churning out measures.

I would move now, Sir, that we suspend for the dinnerbreak until 7.45 p.m. and thereafter we will continue with thedebate on this Item which we will not finish tonight and thatwe will keep this going and hopefully next week we will beable to finish it.

I beg to move that this House do now suspend until7.45 p.m.

Hon. R. N. GREENIDGE: I beg to second that.

The question that the Sitting do now suspend until7.45 p.m. was put and resolved in the affirmative withoutdivision and Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the Sittingaccordingly.7.00 p.m.

RESUMPTION

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This Sitting is resumed.

Mr. M. Z. WILLIAMS: It is but fair that I too shouldlend a voice at this time to this debate and with a bit of pridesince I will probably be able to boast in this Chamber thatunder the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act the Constituencyof St. Michael North West stands to benefit. In so doing, itwould be fair for me as the voice of the people of St.Michael North West to be able to say thank you to thisHonourable Chamber and to the Minister responsible forbringing this amendment to this Chamber.

It is quite strange when I listen to the voice of theHonourable Member for St. Lucy putting his case. He alsomust relate to the fact that this is not Barbados of the fortiesand of 1937. That this is a progressive Barbados where everysingle person, young and middle-aged, thinks in terms ofupward mobility and that is to be owners of property. That issomething that we must all understand clearly.

The youngest Barbadian from the time he has a job thefirst thing on his or her mind is to be in possession of a

property. The Honourable Member for St. Lucy would alsoknow that St. Lucy can be said to be the parish where therehave been more land disputes in the law courts of Barbadosthan in any other parish in Barbados. I believe the records ofthe law courts will probably attest to this.

What is extremely important here, Sir, is that eventhough you may be putting a case for the landlords you mustalso understand that the landlords in many cases in urbanBarbados are difficult to trace because of what may beconsidered to be family disputes. You may have a situationwhere wills have not been made and where, in many cases,the person who is executor of the will has passed on. Youfind that there have been lots of problems in terms of landownership in urban Barbados. You find in certain districtsand in certain communities people who will be living onland for more than 15 or 20 years and still do not know theirlandlords, have not been able to pay rent because thelandlord does not exist.

It is also a case where in some cases the related familymight be paying rent to a particular family member over acertain amount of years and then at a given time a letterappears from an attorney who states that relatives livingoutside of Barbados have given indication that they are notthe owners of the land, so more rent must be paid to thatparticular family. I say that to say this. It is not fair in thismodern Barbados for families who have been living ontenantry land for so many years to be subject to thehumiliation and the situation which they face in terms ofimproving their lot.

If you look at some of the tenantries across Barbadosyou will find that as soon the youngster starts to work oneof the first things that that person does is probably look forsome sort of transportation and then that transportationcannot get up the gap because the gap is not suitable. Thereason why it has not been done is because for years thatfamily has not been able to improve the surroundings of thathousehold and have not been in a position to make theindividual members of that family feel as though somethingis in it for them at a later date. As long as there isestablished ownership – my mother or my father haveowned this property – then somewhere along the line theywill go to their graves without being in possession of a pieceof property.

I am very happy to say that under the TenantriesFreehold Purchase Act that I can use the area of StrakersTenantry in my constituency as an example. You had asituation where there was a dispute, which I do not want togo into in detail in this Honourable Chamber. A particularmember of the family decided to offer the land for saleafter some people had lived on that land for some 45 to 50years. The price that was being asked, and the Honourable

51 December 5, 2000

Minister of Housing can attest to this, because he was drawninto the matter extremely early, was $7.50 a square foot.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you look at the situationand you relate to it, here are families who have been living ina tenantry for many years and out of the blue the agentdecides, on the instructions of a family member, that the landis up for sale. The price that was being asked turned out to bea price that we understood clearly could not be a properasking price.

I am proud to say in this Honourable Chamber thatbecause of the intervention of the Ministry of Housing andLands that under the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act theresidents of Strakers Tenantry today are on the road toowning their properties, not at $7.50 a square foot but at $5a square foot, with a contribution of $2.50 coming from theGovernment. That goes to show you the importance and therole of the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act working withinurban Barbados.

It is all right to talk about rural Barbados but in somecases of rural Barbados we know it was plantation land andwe know the situation where the Tenantries FreeholdPurchase Act has already been passed. When we come tourban Barbados in the communities across Barbados thenone must understand clearly that somewhere along the line inorder for those families to have a sense of independence, tobe able to get to and from their homes without having to puton plastic shoes or three shoes, as I have heard theHonourable Member for St. Lucy mention, must have accessto better roads, access to owning their homes and have theutilities that are necessary to improve the living condition inthat household.

Gone are the days, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when youcould bring up young children to cross the yard or ask the oldlady who might have arthritis or ask the old gentleman whomight have suffered from some sickness, to get up at twelveo’clock at night and cross the yard to do what they have todo.

The reason why under the Tenantries FreeholdPurchase Act that these people can benefit is because they donot have to take a piece of paper to a landlord to sign, whowill tell them he is not giving them permission to dig a wellbecause somewhere along the line he is owner of the landand he has a right to give them a turn-around at that point.

Under the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act and thatperson purchases that land, then they have the right toimprove their living conditions. So I must support this Actand the amendment in a sense that it gives better standards ofliving to the average Barbadian within urban Barbados whois highly affected in terms of the disputes that exist overownership of the land he is living on.

I am quite surprised at the Honourable Member for St.Lucy and also the Leader of the Opposition when I can taketheir Manifesto of 1999 on page 15 and in it they saidclearly:

“... revise the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act toensure that the descendants of qualified tenants are notdisadvantaged and that Barbadians can have access tothe idle land around them.”

8.00 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, how can the Honourable Memberfor St. Lucy stand in this Chamber and prevent people fromowning something that can be passed on to anothergeneration. They have alluded to it in their Manifesto. I willrepeat it for the Honourable Member for St. Lucy:

“Revise the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act toensure that the descendants of qualified tenants are notdisadvantaged and that Barbadians can have access toidle land around them.”

They also went further:

“We will acquire the land on either side of theplantation tenantry road to provide lots for housing forthe children of the existing owner.”

How can you stand in this Honourable Chamber todayand not support the amendment? Are you telling me thatfamilies that live in Half Moon Fort, Crab Hill and all ofthose places who have been living on tenantries all thoseyears should not be in a position to go towards ownership?The Honourable Member knows well that in the parish of St.Lucy people do not move, that they live on the land fromseed to seed but they are not the owners of the land.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this amendment has nothing to dowith the landlord. In some cases the landlord can be gratefulfor Government’s involvement because there are many thingsthat the landlord would not be able to do to improve theliving conditions of those families. But with the assistance ofGovernment, under the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act,these people can be sure that their lifestyle will improve.

The Honourable Member for St. Lucy has beentelling the Backbenchers that they should not supportthis amendment but I would like to tell you why wehave to support this. I will put a case for one Member ofParliament who is now a Minister, under the TenantriesFreehold Purchase Act. There are families in the areaof St. Michael West Central like the Leacocks, who livedon that land for many years and that land has just beenoffered to them under the Tenantries Freehold PurchaseAct at $3.00 per square foot. This means that the propertywill be owned by the family and the father or motherwill now be in a position to pass that land on to theirchildren. We know that some people make improvement to

December 5, 2000 52

their house because it is on tenantry land and no sooner thanthe improvement is made, the landlord raises the rent.

Asides.

Mr. M. Z. WILLIAMS: Yes, we know that the landlordhas a right to raise the rent because the law provides for that.

The Honourable Member for St. Michael East broughtthe issue of colour into the debate and we know for a factthat some of these tenantries in Barbados are owned by blackBarbadians and they make life hard for some of thosetenants.

How many of you can attest to the fact that almostevery Sunday you would see trucks moving houses from onepart of Barbados to another part. Every Sunday you wouldhave to stop on the road because a truck would be passingwith a house overhanging on the road with the carpenter andeverything else on the truck. Mr. Deputy Speaker, thosedays are long gone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, people who live on tenantriesused to be squatters at the mercy of the landlord and if therewas a situation where the landlord did not get his own way,you would have to take up your house and move. Sir, thosedays are long gone. This is why I have to support theamendment to the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act.

Sir, the Honourable Member for St. Michael Westmight not be acquainted with this but I can tell him of a casein Headleys Land in Deacons Road where there is a familyliving for 40 years and there was a dispute and the land wassold to another landlord. This is a case where the family wasliving on the land for 45 years but because of the number ofhouses on the land, it did not justify the help of theTenantries Freehold Purchase Act and the land was sold.There were only three houses on that land and after all thoseyears that the people lived on that land the new landlord gavethem notice. They had to move and they were scattered allover the place. Honourable Members would have read aboutit because it appeared in the newspapers sometime back.

Sir, under the Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act thereis protection not only for the landlord but for the tenantwhich enables the tenant to benefit.

I would like at this point to ask the HonourableMinister responsible, to see if the conveyance can bespeeded up. The delay is caused by the research which has tobe done by the Land Registry and also the legal end of itwhich takes up a lot of time. I am concerned about this andI would like the Minister to look at it to see if there is aquicker way for the people owning their properties under theTenantries Freehold Purchase Act to be able to obtain thoseproperties without waiting for a long time.

I think this is extremely important because of theamount of tenantries in existence. When we look at theamount of tenantries in urban Barbados from the City ofBridgetown to parts of St. James, South... When you look asfar as Christ Church West and see the amount of work andthe amount of research that have to be done in order forthese tenants to obtain ownership of these properties, Ithink, it is only fair that some faster process be carried outso that those properties which are set aside by the UrbanDevelopment Commission for ownership, can be speedilyowned by the tenants.8.10 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think we need to prolongthe argument that this present Government has made itpossible for more people to have access to properties. Wehave made it possible for more people to have access toproperties by way of land and under the same TenantriesFreehold Purchase Act. Where there is unoccupied land ina tenantry, in some cases, family members who live next tothat open tenantry stand to benefit.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will like to see the day, underthis Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act, when theAmendment will be made so that those people will not beplaced at a disadvantage and they too will have the rights topurchase their properties.

That is what I would like to see at a later date in thisChamber because, the Honourable Member for St. Lucyknows as well as I do – I am a North man like him – that thepeople of St. Lucy are people who believe in ownership. Insome cases, they believe they own the very properties thatthey are living on, when in truth and in fact, they do not.Because they do not own it they do not want to give it upwhen the time comes and it ends up in the law courts.

There are some cases which, as far as that parish ofSt. Lucy is concerned, are still in the process of beingsettled.

I think there is a shortcut under the TenantriesFreehold Purchase Act because, it says clearly, that if youhave been living on land for more than 20 years, that by aparticular date you can have access to owning that land. Oneof the things that I would also like to draw to the Minister’sattention, is that it is alright for us to say that we wouldallow the tenants to obtain the land that they are living on,but I am sure that when the survey has been done on someof those lots they will be more than 5,000 square feet. Weknow for a fact that Government will only contribute to thefirst 3,000 square feet. Some of the lots are less than that,and if we are thinking of putting an adequate house on landspace, we have to think in terms of giving the correct squarefootage. I know for a fact that there are some people

53 December 5, 2000

who build houses at the back of their families, or next doorto their families. That is alright, Sir, but, because that isdone, it is seen as occupying the space.

It so boils down, Mr. Speaker, that if we are thinkingof giving people adequate space to improve theirsurroundings, they must have the best facilities that arenecessary. I think that in all fairness, under the TenantriesFreehold Purchase Act, each person should be given theadequate requirement of space for the development of theirproperties.

As I said earlier, there are some cases where peopleoccupy two or three lots, and because they occupy two orthree lots, they have the right to own those lots, because theyhave been living on them for more than twenty years.

I think we need to even up the scale. I think we need tolook at the situation where those persons who would beplaced at a disadvantage would be better off. The same goesfor those persons who own more than what they shouldreally own. There should be a clear understanding for betterorganisation in those tenantries.

In closing, I would have to support the Amendment andI will, once again, like to say a very special thank you to theMinistry of Housing and Lands and also to the UrbanDevelopment Commission for what will be done in theConstituency of St. Michael North West.

Personally, Sir, when I check those tenantries in St.Michael North West which stand to benefit under theTenantries Freehold Purchase Act, there are some seventeenhouseholds and I think that by the year 2004, that, I, as theirParliamentary Representative, will feel extremely proud toknow that I can go to homes, within certain tenantries, andfeel proud to know that those residents are now the rightfulowners of those properties. I thank you, Sir.

Mr. D. T. GILL: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise to makemy contribution to this Bill, which seeks to amend theprincipal Tenantries Freehold Purchase Act.

I would like to preface my contribution by stating thatthis Act shows great respect for both landlord and tenant andat times, Sir, the Government does have restrains on itself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Bill seeks to bring somesocio-economic equilibrium between those tenants fromrural Barbados who have benefited significantly from theTenantries Freehold Purchase Act of l980, which I mustremind the members of the Opposition, was also the worksof an earlier Barbados Labour Party Administration.

That Act, Sir, was and still is here as a wonderful andexciting Act, which in its entirety, represents the final link

between the days of slavery and what is obtained here today.It has certain objectives which have fed into recentlegislations, particularly this Bill which we are debating herethis evening.

Sir, I would like to mention just a few of them. Itsought and it did, the objective:

c. To transfer legal title in respect of lands under theTenantry Freehold Purchase Act to the tenant.

d. To provide essential services in tenantries such aswater, electricity, and roads.

e. To improve community facilities and services; health,education, sanitation, community centres and playingfields.

f. To increase agricultural output and raise productivity.

g. To upgrade housing and environmental sanitation.

h. To create new avenues of employment in the ruralsector, which, eventually lead to the creation of theRural Development Commission in l995.

Sir, this shows you that in l980, the seeds were sownfor the present-day Rural Development Commission, as wellas the Urban Development Commission.

No one, Opposition, or otherwise, can see this Bill,Amendment, the Urban Development Commission, or theRural Development Commission Acts, as being Acts ofcircumstances, or serendipitous. It shows continuance, itshows long-term strategic policies and sustainability.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, further to the passage of the Actto which I referred earlier, an initial survey was taken in theurban area. As it were, the rural area was selected in the 80s,and shortly thereafter, research was done in the urban area todiscover that there were some 3,000 tenants renting on some200 spots.8.20 p.m.

However, those initial figures, when compared withtoday’s statistics are really and truly very conservative. Youwill see later on in my discourse how conservative they are.Sir, there was a variance between the rural tenantries and theurban tenantries – and there still is – and that is the price of10 cents per square foot which the plantation tenantries hadto pay, vis-a-vis, what the market value of the urbantenantries would determine to be the price of the land in theurban tenantries so somet hing had to be done.

Sir, again to show you that this Administration is anadministration which sees its Manifesto as a social contractand does not abandon it, in 1999 it was clearly stated in our

December 5, 2000 54

Manifesto, and to be precise, at page 26 that a BarbadosLabour Party, if returned to Government, would:

• “Subsidise the price of urban land so that low incomegroups will pay no more than $2.50 per square footfor land irrespective of open market value.”

It was clearly stated up-front with no hoodwinking orno retroactive.

Moreover, Sir, at the same time there was a pledgewhich promised – and not to discriminate against thelandowners that is why I preface my contribution by statingthat it had been fair for both landlord and tenant – to providefunding to ensure that landlords receive the differencebetween the fair market share and the statutory price of$2.50.

Sir, our Manifesto pledge went on further, to promisethe urban poor that particular amendments would be brought.These amendments that are coming down here today havebeen promised. We have not reneged on our Manifestopledge. It is a continuity and what I refer to as part of ourcontinuum. We pledged that we would bring this amendmentto expand the definition of qualified tenants to includepersons who have been renting individual house spots formore than 20 years.

Sir, there was some change where we went from five totwo. We have not interfered with that but superimposed onthat we are saying that if you have been there for more than20 years, then you are entitled. Sir, that seemed to have giventhe Honourable Member for St. Lucy great difficulty todigest. Why? I do not know because there are lots ofinstances, and I can speak about areas in my constituency,where the landlord seems to gain great delight in seeing histenant remain in the most dilapidated state. I would beashamed to tell you of a condition which my good friend theHonourable Member for St. Michael East told me aboutwhere he tried to enlighten a constituent in such dilapidatedstate and her landlord literally poured blows on her whenshe...

Aside.

Mr. D. T. GILL: ...A hammer? He beat her with ahammer, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when she sought to getimprovement of that abject state in which she existed, themorass in which she lived. She lived there for many years butit seems, Sir, it brings some degree of delight and satisfactionfor some landlords to see his or her tenant live at asubliminal level. Furthermore, Sir, the present Governmenthas given grants of up to $15 000 per household, in order toassist households in relocation programmes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a sequence which we arefollowing. It is no mix and match. It forms a continuum and

a sequence. When you are speaking, Sir, aboutempowerment, this is real empowerment. Never before, hasany Government of Barbados given a direct subsidy towould-be owners in order to ensure land distribution inBarbados and thereby create a new class of landowner.

This something which the people in Eastern Europeare now struggling to achieve, something which people inLatin America know nothing about and something, Sir,which others closer to home, until today, have not been ableto even conceptualise, hence, the Amendment before thisHouse this evening. I would like to hail this Amendment, asa new period of economic emancipation in our nation.

Sir, this Act serves to uplift by the bootstraps,thousands who live in this social morale, since they cannotimprove themselves on lands owned by others. When oneconsiders that the urban tenants cannot provide themselveswith the basic things like water-borne toilet facilities, theycannot improve themselves by using a stone structure, evenif they are able to own the land, they find it very difficult –and I will give you some statistics to support this. A surveyin recent times has shown that there are still some 5 000houses in urban Barbados with dry pit latrines and they haveshown, Sir, that another 300 have to endure makeshiftfacilities.

Only this morning my niece was speaking with meabout an elderly lady who worships with her and whoresides in a constituency close to mine and she has told herthat at her age of 72, she does not have a dry pit latrine, letalone a water-borne facility. She was at tears asking her ifshe could ask me to ask her representative to see if we coulddo something for her by Christmas.

Sir, at the end of the day and you meet these cases, youmust be a man like Job to carry on the good fight. And theHonourable Member for St. Lucy has the audacity to get upin here and say that those people should be denied, byextension of his argument...8.30 p.m.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: On a point of order. TheHonourable Member is misleading the House, Sir. I havenever said anything in my speech in here today that thetenants should be deprived of the right to have land, Sir. SoI am seeking, Sir, that you will ask the Honourable Memberto withdraw those remarks because I never said any suchthing, Sir.

Mr. D. T. GILL: Sir, I said by extension of hisargument.

Asides.

Mr. D. T. GILL: Well, you do not have an argument,then I am very sorry. You do not have an argument,

55 December 5, 2000

Honourable Member. You do not have any facts, so I cannotextend them, so I tend to agree with you.

Sir, this reluctance of landlords to permit tenants tosink wells..., because in some cases the basic cost is $3 000,but if at all you get a substrata with quite a bit of water andconstantly collapsing, it can get into yet another $3 000... Soif they find the money to do the basic sinking of the well,then, Sir, to go even further and to case up it will probablycost another $3 000.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, once the tenants have been ableto purchase and own and be titled, then as my learned friendfrom St. Michael North West said, he or she is now able tobargain and is now able to go to the bank. Sir, this is a funnything. A bank would lend a young man living in an urbantenantry in a dilapidated state $30 000 to buy a new car butwould not lend him that sort of money to purchase the landin the tenantry because he does not qualify, strange as it mayseem.

Sir, the tenants have been put into a bind. You knowwhy? A survey has shown that 50 per cent of all thehouseholds in urban Barbados earn less than $10 000 perannum and another 35 per cent earn less than $5 000.Therefore, you cannot go and bargain with any bank topurchase, you have to wait for the Government of the day...

Asides.

Mr. D. T. GILL: You want me to repeat it. I am sayingthat half of the households in urban Barbados earns less than$10 000 per annum and 35 per cent earns less than $5 000.Mr. Deputy Speaker, this means that the Government mustcome to their aid and empower them. If we are talking aboutempowerment, this is real empowerment. The Governmentmust come to their rescue, and in this financial yearGovernment has set aside $900 000 in subsidies to thosequalified tenants through the Urban DevelopmentCommission.

Sir, since the Urban Development Commission has setup its public relations programme which is done on both theelectronic and the print media, the print media on weekendsand the electronic media on Mondays and Tuesdays, we haveseen an avalanche of tenants coming in and an avalanche oftenantries and other lands being identified.

Sir, there is still further assistance available to thosewho do not have that basic $2.50. We have reduced that$2.50 per square foot even further and Government isprepared to assist by way of a grant to those persons whocannot pay. This, Sir, comes in addition to the GeneralWorkers’ Housing Loan Scheme beneficiaries who were ableto use that facility under the Tenantries Freehold PurchaseAct.

Sir, that facility to which I have just referred is set upin the Urban Housing Loan Scheme at the UrbanDevelopment Commission. Sir, right now the UrbanDevelopment Commission is working with the people insome 86 tenantries in purchasing their lots out of some 312lots which are earmarked for transfer. That comes to a totalof $1.756 million. Government has allocated over $900 000but in effect it is $1.756 million. In all of these tenantriesincluding Well Gap; Alleyne’s Land; Straker’s Land;London Road; Plum Tree; the Garden Land; GwendolynGibbs; Betty Roberts; Pleasant Hall Land and St. Matthais,already some 500 persons have been titled. At every meetingwe go out there and meet with them and the numbers havebeen multiplying. This is what you call empowerment.

Sir, the Urban Development Commission isnonetheless experiencing some hindrances. The fullimplementation of this is being held up in the Ministry ofHousing and Lands, I have been told, by some rubber stampthat cost $10. Therefore, I am asking my good friend, theHonourable Member for St. George North, to investigatewhy should a stamp costing $10 be holding up peoplereceiving titles to these lands.

Notwithstanding all the beautiful, exciting andinteresting legislation that we may get in here and passedpeople are getting frustrated and want to know why is itthat they have filled out Form 1 and they cannot get theirhands on the titles. I have been made to understand thatthis is due to some rubber stamp to stamp Form 1 for theMinister to sign and they told me it goes back to the days ofa former minister of Housing and Lands before ouradministration.

Section 10.2 of the Act required tenants to forward twocopies of the Form 1 Notice to the Minister responsible forlands within seven days of the date of which the notice hasbeen given to the landlord.

Section 10.3 requires the Minister of Housing andLands to retain one copy of the Notice referred to insubsection 2, stamp the other as having been received by himand return that stamped copy to the tenant.

Subsection 4 states that no conveyance shall beregistered or recorded within the meaning of the PropertyTransfer Tax Act unless the copy of the notice given to thetenant pursuant to subsection 3 is produced at the time theconveyance is presented for registration..

Sir, since 1991 there have been problems and I wouldlike, as I have said already, to have them alleviated. Rightnow in my constituency, I have to tell the people to hold on,the problem is somewhere in the Ministry of Housing andLands and that it is not my problem.

December 5, 2000 56

There are some 65 qualified tenants in the SimpsonLand Tenantry at Halls Road; 35 tenants in Scott’s GapTenantry; along with those in Gerald Callender Tenantry justoutside my constituency, McClean’s Gap Tenantry which issometimes referred to as Maughan’s Tenantry; CumminsRoad Tenantry; Simeon Jordan Tenantry; Delamere landTenantry; Campaign Land Tenantry and Brathwaite’sTenantry are being held up, I have been made to understand,because of this rubber stamp and a signature.

Asides.

Mr. D. T. GILL: I do not know. It does not seem truebut this is what I am hearing.

Sir, when I asked about finding spots, I am told thatthere are lots of derelict buildings and spots in yourconstituency. Get them cleared man and your people can getthem. Today, this evening as we speak, there are 34 suchderelict properties which again are being held up bysomething bureaucratic. I think this may call for anamendment to the Act, where at that point in time theMinister responsible was the Minister for Housing but todaythe Minister is another Minister, the Minister of SocialTransformation. There are 34 and I can attest to that. I canmake this a document of the House. 8.40 p.m.

Aside.

Mr. D. T. GILL: There are 36, an extra two. It soundslike the American election. Another two have come in. Thebeautiful thing about this Act today which we are looking atare some of the parts which bring gratification and I havementioned them in passing earlier. Section 3 which says:

“Section 8 of the principal Act, notwithstandingSection 5(1) where a tenant referred to in Section 7 isresiding on a lot for a period of 20 years or more at the1st of February,1990 that tenant shall from the date ofthe commencement of this section be regarded as aqualified tenant of that lot for the purposes of thisAct.”

Sir, virtually everyday an old person is pushed off theland on which he was living for more than 20 years. Theyounger generation of landlord is just getting rid of them.

There is a tenantry in St. Michael South Central wherethe practice is to deal with one every six months and youkeep quiet and six months go by and you take every legalprocedure. Then you go and you smile and you go and youdeal with another one. Thank God when this Bill is fullyestablished no matter how much the Honourable Member for

St. Lucy talks, that type of behaviour where old people areput out in the cold of the night will no longer be a thing ofthe present but a thing of the past.

Sir, I spoke about some equity being establishedbetween the tenant and the landlord and this amendmentseeks, no matter how much you talk, to make this a thing ofthe past. This seeks, Sir, to bring some equity between thetenant and the landlord. This is what section 10(a) says:

“A person who is a qualified tenant of a lot at thecommencement of this section and who has exercisedthe right conferred on him by this Act shall completethe purchase of the lot within a period of 5 years fromthe date of the receipt of the notice referred to insection 10(6).”

Sir, that, to use the modern day phrase, is “tenant-friendly or compliant”. Sir, also no matter what theHonourable Member for St. Lucy says the Bill is also veryconsiderate with respect to the landlord. It goes on to say insection 10(A)(2) the following:

“A person who becomes a qualified tenant after thecommencement of this section and has exercised theright conferred on him by this Act shall complete thepurchase of the lot within a period of 3 years from thedate of the exercise of that right.”

Sir, this shows some sort of respect for the landlord.Again, what I prefaced my contribution in saying is that ithas taken into consideration both landlord and tenant.

Sir, you go through these tenantries and people seemconfused. They do not know to whom they should pay theirpittance. They do not know if it is Mr. Scott, if it is thebailiff down in Pickwick Gap or if it is somebody who isdeceased. They set aside a little money and they do nottouch it. Only last week a tenant came to me and said that aman came to her for some money but she did not know him.The lady who used to collect her rent has come back in andshe told me to send it by him, but she did not send it by him.She was going to her and pay it to her. She has not seen thatwoman for over 10 years and she has 10 years of rent putdown.

Section 6 says:

“The Registrar shall notwithstanding the fact that norent has been paid by the tenant as a result of theinability of the tenant to find or ascertain the identity ofthe landlord, proceed under section 13(1) to give thetenant a good title in accordance with this Act.”

57 December 5, 2000

That means that man or woman can take those papers to anybank and transact business. They could pass it down. Theycould bequeath or they could do anything thereafter. So goneare the days that somebody can hide away and then all of asudden you hear – look, you have not been paying your rentso therefore get off, or the person will come up and say thathe or she is the owner.

Sir, this is what you call progressive legislation. This islegislation for the 21st century which removes and detachesmodern day Barbados from early post-emancipationBarbados. I have also said, Sir, in my opening remarks thatthe Government itself has not hurt or disenfranchised ormarginalised itself. At the same time, Sir, it has taken intoconsideration the landlord.

I am winding up now, Sir. In Part II, it says where thelot referred to in paragraph I exceeds 5,000 square feet,because some tenants can be very tricky, they want what istheirs and what is not theirs. Part 2 states:

“Where the lot referred to in paragraph I exceeds5,000 square feet, no subsidy is payable in respect ofthe excess.”

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel proud to be associated withthis Bill which is a Bill to take Barbados into the 21st centuryand beyond. I am grateful, Sir.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Memberfor St. Michael West.

Rev. J. J. S. ATHERLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thankyou for your ear. The hour is long and I would want to be asbrief as possible but certainly pertinent to the relevantmeasure before the House at this time. I feel that I must makea contribution. I heard the Honourable Member for St.Michael North West allude to the fact that in hisconstituency there are 17 identified urban tenantries. In fact,in St. Michael West there are over 20 such tenantries andsome of them are substantially large tenantries as well. InHaywood Land just off lower Bank Hall area/Eagle Hallarea, there are 37 lots and also Hinckson Tenantry inGoodland, just off the St. Michael North West constituencythere is a tenantry of 42 lots. Dr. Kerr’s Land on HindsburyRoad – 59 lots, Lemon Grove Tenantry off Westbury Road– 74 lots; Garden Land Tenantry off Country Road and BankHall – 129 lots. I am reliably told that the Garden Landtenantry is the largest urban tenantry in Barbados. I musttherefore make an input on this issue.8.50 p.m.

The Honourable Member for St. Lucy presumes mydiscomfort, and inaccurately so, with this measure. I am notat all uncomfortable with supporting the measure which isbefore us. The Honourable Member also initially built his

argument upon a premise which he associated with a biblicalconcept of social justice and social relations and challengedme on that basis to support this measure in the face of thatreference.

The Bible, of course, does speak to issues of socialjustice and social relations but I think the HonourableMember inaccurately represented the teachings of Christ andthe biblical position. In fact, Christ is the best model whenone thinks of what reflects social justice and proper socialrelations. The position that Christ took, for the betterinformation of the Honourable Member for St. Lucy, is thathe believed in a concept or philosophy of surrendering one’sestablished rights in the wider public interest. That is aconcept that the Honourable Member needs to grasp. Thecapacity to surrender one’s established rights to the widerpublic interest.

Jesus also held a view and, in fact, made it clear in verypublic terms that if your neighbour makes a claim on yourcloak let him have your coat also. When it comes toneighbourliness, there is a story to be told of a Samaritan, themoral of which is basically this. One must be possessed of aready willingness to divest oneself of one’s resources in theinterest of meeting the needs of the neighbour. If you talkabout social relations and social justice and you want to usea biblical premise, I invite the Honourable Member for St.Lucy to come to terms with some of those things.

Beyond that, there is a principle of democracy whichsuggests that policy making should be attempted always inthe interest of the majority. It is unfortunate that we wouldwant to politicise an issue which in all honesty does revolvearound a clash of interests of two classes of people, a land-owning class and a landless class, both of whom inBarbadian context today, are poor persons.

It is unfortunate therefore that we would want topoliticise an issue that brings together two groups of poor,largely black persons in Barbadian society. I do not think thatthat is the way to go. I would invite Honourable Members onthe other Side who might be so disposed to reconsider thatposition.

I believe a proper expression of democracy as wellmandates that tangibles must be associated with the practiceof that democracy. We must, as a government, seek toensure that persons in whose interest we govern are made tobenefit in tangible ways bearing in mind the principle that wemake policy in the interest of the majority in general terms soto speak.

Mr. D. St. E. KELLMAN: On a point of order. TheHonourable Member is giving the impression that when youhave cash, that is tangible, and that it is right to take a

December 5, 2000 58

tangible asset from a landlord, give it to a tenant and thentake from the tenant cash; and then he speaks as if the cashis tangible. I want to correct him on an accounting term. Thatis not true.

Rev. J. J. S. ATHERLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Iwould have the Honourable Member for St. Lucy tounderstand that I am not in the business of impressions andthat cash is tangible. In this case, I speak with reference toland and not cash. We must make our democracy to havemeaningful expression by ensuring that tangible benefitscome into the possession of the majority. It is a question ofshared privileges. I think that is the type of democraticculture that we have fostered and developed in this country.I think this measure seeks in a very meaningful way to ensurethat a class of people long deprived in this regard are broughtinto the sharing of privileges.

I agree with the Honourable Member for St. Lucy thatthere is a very high premium attached to the business ofownership of land in Barbados and I could not understandwhy he would have offered that point in support of hisargument. In fact, that point could be used to support eitherside of this issue. A very high premium is attached toownership of land. Whether you are part of the traditionalland-owning class in Barbados or whether or not throughGovernment’s good policy you are brought into ownershipof land and property in Barbados, there is a very highpremium attached to the business of ownership.

I support the view that this measure enables theoffspring of landlords in whose interests the argument on theother Side has been put, to having benefited through sale ofthese lands to come into a position where income derivedfrom sale of that property may in fact be invested in other orperhaps even better properties. I see it as having an enablingvalue with respect to the interests of those represented moreso than by the argument on the other Side.9.00 p.m.

Sir, I strongly support the view that persons who havelost the right of title to their land, who perhaps, had intentionto pass it onto their offsprings, that priority must be given byGovernment to allow those persons to benefit from purchaseof Government land. My understanding is that provision ismade for this and I support that view.

Landlessness is associated with the perpetuation of acycle of poverty. I think that as this Government, throughpolicy formulation, seeks to break the cycle of poverty in thiscountry, that this is the type of policy initiative which mustbe pursued because landlessness is one of those featureswhich significantly contribute to the whole business ofsustained poverty in the traditional context and as we haveknown it in Barbados until recent times.

The business of security of tenure is not only the rightof ownership and the tangible value attached, but the wholepsychology wrapped up in the business of being secured inyour circumstances. This brings people to a position wherethey can be securely lodged on lands on which they had beenliving for some time.

The business of access to credit or capital has alreadybeen mentioned and we do not need to spend too much timeon that. All of these are tangible and meaningful ways inwhich our people in Barbados are being brought into benefitsof democracy through policies on the part of thisGovernment.

The impact on an individual’s life is radical and theexperience is certainly uplifting when one comes intoownership of this sort. This is not owning a car which isbasically an item of consumption and which from themoment of purchase starts to depreciate. This is empoweringpeople and changing the whole ethos and culture of theirlives. This is about the business of transforming the profileof slums in urban Barbados.

People, when they come into ownership, take specialpride in what they own and they maintain it and improve it.This whole business has within it that inherent capacity tochange the profile of what we now regard as slum areaacross St. Michael. The Honourable Member for St. Lucymight be a bit removed from that type of situation but whenyou travel urban Barbados and live and walk among thepeople you know what you are talking about. This type ofpolicy has that capability to totally transform that kind ofsituation.

It has been represented by the argument on the otherSide that the average Barbadian landlord in urban Barbadosis a gentleman. My experience is, that the profile of theaverage landlord in urban Barbados is not one hundred percent Christian. Mr. Deputy Speaker, these landlords areknown for the business of unscrupulous practices andexploitation of poor and unfortunate people. There are toomany instances of landlords collecting rents without propertitle. I can point to an instance in Parris Gap in St. MichaelWest, where a landlord, now deceased, for many yearscollected rent without proper title. His spouse now collectsrent and still no clear title has been established. Mr. DeputySpeaker, as I have said, the profile of the landlord inBarbados is not one hundred per cent Christian.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, conflict is very much a part of theproperty culture across urban Barbados. We talk of situationswhere landlords are being robbed of their lands which theyintended to pass on to their children but the truth of thematter is that in many of these instances, owners of landshave difficulty as to how to dispose of their land because ofconflict amongst family members. A lot of property disputes

59 December 5, 2000

are evident across urban St. Michael and a lot of land is thecentre of this type of dispute. In fact, the facility to sell theland might be offered as a solution to many who findthemselves in situations where there are three or fourchildren who want to fight for the few plots of land whichmay become available at the demise of parents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that this Government hasdone and continues to do a tremendous job in terms ofdevelopment of policy with reference to land acrossBarbados. I think that much more needs to be done withrespect to housing because people cannot live on landwithout access to proper housing.

This Government does much more in terms of housingpolicy and housing development than the administrationrepresented by Members on the other Side in their time. Ithink that a lot of what is done with reference to housing isconcentrated in certain rural areas of Barbados and I thinkmore needs to be done in urban Barbados. It is inaccurate tosuggest that there is no land available in urban Barbados forthe building of houses. I can point to three or four largetracks of land in the St. Michael West constituency wherehouses could easily be provided for poor and working classpeople in Barbados. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like toimplore the Honourable Minister of Housing, the Ministerfor St. George North, to recognize that a very good urbanhousing policy would be very much complementary to thisurban land policy and that, one without the other, isinsufficient.9.10 p.m.

They make these land spots available to people, but thehouses which they presently occupy, is far from adequate, isstill demoralizing and certainly very painful. Members of theurban area – St. Michael constituency – can testify, whenfaced with demands from constituents who lack properhousing.

I think it is a move in the right direction with respectto lands, because we have got to come up to speed in respectof lands in urban Barbados and I would like to make thatappeal. Thank you.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I begto move that further consideration of this Bill be postponed.

I beg to move, Sir, that on the conclusion ofGovernment’s Business, that this House do now adjourned.

Rev. J. J. S. ATHERLEY: I beg to second that.

Asides.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: We have to recommit itemReports from Select Committee, Sir.

REPORTS FROM SELECT COMMITTEES

Hon. R. St. C. TOPPIN: Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, onour behalf, I wish to raise before this Honourable Chamberthe Report of the Joint Select Committee of the Fair TradingCommission and Utilities Regulation Bill, 2000.

At an appropriate date, I will ask for the adoption of theReport.

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS: Sir, that concludesGovernment’s Business for the day.

ADJOURNMENT

I beg to move that this Honourable House do nowadjourned until Tuesday, 12th December, 2000, at 11.00 a.m.

On the motion of Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS,seconded by Rev. J. J. S. ATHERLEY, the question wasput and resolved in the affirmative without division, andMr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House accordingly.9.l7 p.m.

December 5, 2000 60

CONTENTS

MINUTES

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Confirmation of Minutes of the Meeting ofTuesday, November 28, 2000.

PAPERS

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Financial Statements of the Needham’s PointDevelopment Inc. for the year ended December31, 1998.

CONGRATULATORY SPEECHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Hon. D. A. C. Simmons spoke paying tribute toRt. Hon. Sir Lloyd Sandiford, former Member ofthe House of Assembly and former PrimeMinister on the recent conferment on Sir Lloydof the distinction of Knight of St. Andrew. Alsoother Members who spoke:

Mr. D. J. H. Thompson, 5; Rt. Hon. O. S. Arthur,9; Mr. D. St. E. Kellman, 9; Hon. R. N.Greenidge, 10.

Mr. Speaker associated himself with thesentiments expressed.

ORAL REPLIES TO QUESTIONS

Hon. D. A. C. Simmons informed the House thatthe Replies to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 20and 22 were ready.

SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN STANDING ORDERS

Hon. D. A. C. SIMMONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Suspension of Standing Orders Nos. 6, 16, 18,20, 42(5), 43 and 44 for the remainder of theSitting.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

ORDER NO. 11 – BILL ENTITLED AN ACT TOVALIDATE ALL ACTIONS TAKEN INRESPECT OF THE LAND PURPORTED

TO HAVE BEEN VESTED IN PORT ST.CHARLES DEVELOPMENT LTD. BYVIRTUE OF SECTION 7 OF THE PORTST. CHARLES DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1996PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OFTHAT ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Hon. D. A. C. Simmons, 12, 15, 16, 17; Mr. D.St. E. Kellman, 18, 19, 21; Miss H. E.Thompson, 23, 25; Hon. N. A. Lynch, 26; Hon.R. N. Greenidge, 29, 30; Hon. D. J. H.Thompson, 31; Hon. Sir Henry Forde, 34, 36;Rt. Hon. O. S. Arthur, 37, 40.

ORDER NO. 6 – TENANTRIES FREEHOLDPURCHASE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2000 –SUBSTITUTED ORIGINAL BILL OFNOVEMBER 27, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Hon. D. A. C. Simmons, 41; Mr. D. St. E.Kellman, 42, 44; Mr. T. A. Prescod, 46, 47; Mr.M. Z. Williams, 50, 52; Mr. D. T. Gill, 53, 55;Rev. J. J. S. Atherley, 57, 58.

REPORTS FROM SELECT COMMITTEES

Hon. R. St. C. Toppin, 59.

Report of the Joint Select Committee on the FairTrading Bill and the Utilities Regulation Bill.

SUSPENSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 50

ADJOURNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Hon. D. A. C. Simmons, 59.

SPEAKERS IN THIS ISSUE

Rt. Hon. O. S. Arthur (St. Peter)Rev. J. J. S. Atherley (St. Michael West)Hon. Sir Henry Forde (Christ Church West)Mr. D. T. Gill (St. Michael South Central)Hon. R. N. Greenidge (St. Philip North)Mr. D. St. E. Kellman (St. Lucy)Hon. N. A. Lynch (St. Michael South)Mr. T. A. Prescod (St. Michael East)Hon. D. A. C. Simmons (St. Thomas)Mr. SPEAKER (St. Michael Central)Mr. D. J. H. Thompson (St. John)Miss H. E. Thompson (St. James South)Hon. R. St. C. Toppin (St. Michael North)Mr. M. Z. Williams (St. Michael North West)